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


Rules Questions

551 to 600 of 1,170 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>

el cuervo wrote:
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.

Yup, take anything posted in the forums with a grain of salt ;) It does reframe the feat for me though, if it is supposed to be so minor that Favored Enemy and Bane cant activate on it than i would lean towards it shouldnt allow any feats that alter a characters body.


Of course bane and favored enemy will work with it. They are pretty straightforwardly effects related to race. Or cause such effects, if you will.


Forseti wrote:
Of course bane and favored enemy will work with it. They are pretty straightforwardly effects related to race. Or cause such effects, if you will.

Wait, what? You cant have it both ways; your statement requires you to re-interpet the clearly written rules alrady out there for Bane and Favored Enemy. Both abilities require a check against Type and Sub Type. They dont care if you are half-elf, drow, Elf or any other flavour of tree hugging hippy, all they look for is Type: Humanoid (Elf). Even your previously quoted spell allows you to pretend a creature has a different Type so your Favored Enemy bonus can apply. If you hold that Racial Heritage does include counting as if you have a different sub type than i need no supporting comment from a developer, just look at the existing rules on how these abilities work.


You... you're not... you can't be serious... -_-


el cuervo wrote:
You... you're not... you can't be serious... -_-

I admit I mistook posts in previous Racial Heritage threads to be from a developer and from that believed Favored Enemy/Bane activated off Racial Heritage. I looked it up again and saw that i was wrong. What that means is that it is just one interpetation that those abilities would function off of Racial Heritage but that does nothing to alter how the abilities work, it does have severe implications on what Racial Heritage does under that interpetation. I am unclear on if that was the original intent of the feat but am leaning towards no. What you and Forseti have me confused over is how the feat could activate abilities that clearly function off Type and not Race while at the same time not making any changes to your Type.

Dark Archive

Torbyne wrote:
Forseti wrote:
Of course bane and favored enemy will work with it. They are pretty straightforwardly effects related to race. Or cause such effects, if you will.
Wait, what? You cant have it both ways; your statement requires you to re-interpet the clearly written rules alrady out there for Bane and Favored Enemy. Both abilities require a check against Type and Sub Type. They dont care if you are half-elf, drow, Elf or any other flavour of tree hugging hippy, all they look for is Type: Humanoid (Elf). Even your previously quoted spell allows you to pretend a creature has a different Type so your Favored Enemy bonus can apply. If you hold that Racial Heritage does include counting as if you have a different sub type than i need no supporting comment from a developer, just look at the existing rules on how these abilities work.

Just curious, if my human cleric took "Racial Heritage, Goblin", by your reading would I gain Stealth as a class skill?

from the PRD:

Quote:
Goblinoid Subtype: Goblinoids are stealthy humanoids who live by hunting and raiding and who all speak Goblin. Goblinoids treat Stealth as a class skill.

Since I would now be a Human (type: Humanoid, Subtype: Human, Sub-Subtype: Goblin)?

Of if it was dwarf instead of Goblin, would I gain 60' darkvision?

Quote:
Dwarf Subtype: This subtype is applied to dwarves and creatures related to dwarves. Creatures with the dwarf subtype have darkvision 60 feet.

?

Just trying to understand your point of view better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually.. I would hazard on a no for that.. But at the same time, huh. That is some interesting things I didn't know as far as a character builder type of things went.

Does Goblin/Dwarf Subtype in the character builder automatically cost 1 or 2 points?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
VargrBoartusk wrote:
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...

You go back to thinking "correct" and "Intent" are one and the same. It was intended that a Kobold would take the Tail Terror Feat. Kobolds have a tail. It was never the original intent that another race, such as the tailless human, would take this feat. They never intended this Feat to grow other races this isn't a Kobold tails.

I will ask you, do you think the cat in the box is dead or alive?

This is what we are reduced to think of when this circle repeats.

Your a human in real life, yes? Look behind you. Do you have a tail? Is it one that is for a LARP or a real one if yes?

The Human race in PF is the same as the dude behind the keyboard. Two hands, arms, torso, legs, feet, head, two eyes, one mouth (With Tongue), two ears and hair on their head (If they don't shave it). What they do not have is a tail.

I don't have one, my sister don't have one nor does my brother. Getting the Feat Tail Terror only allows a character to use a tail to perform an attack, but it doesn't actually give the character a tail. I don't know how else to say this.

You are without Tail.

Have a Tail, you do not.

Tailless, you are.

Tell tall tales, but actually does not have an actual tail.

Go on telling the tale of what gaining a tail entails. You still don't have a human (Or their other Half's) with a tail.

Tailless Whispers.

Fairly Tailless wishes.

Tepid Tails trail endlessly in the dreams of the Tailless.

Like sands through the hourglass, so go the Dreams of a tail.

Getting Tail means something else altogether, not the physical addition of an additional limb.

Anyone else have any?


Happler wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
Forseti wrote:
Of course bane and favored enemy will work with it. They are pretty straightforwardly effects related to race. Or cause such effects, if you will.
Wait, what? You cant have it both ways; your statement requires you to re-interpet the clearly written rules alrady out there for Bane and Favored Enemy. Both abilities require a check against Type and Sub Type. They dont care if you are half-elf, drow, Elf or any other flavour of tree hugging hippy, all they look for is Type: Humanoid (Elf). Even your previously quoted spell allows you to pretend a creature has a different Type so your Favored Enemy bonus can apply. If you hold that Racial Heritage does include counting as if you have a different sub type than i need no supporting comment from a developer, just look at the existing rules on how these abilities work.

Just curious, if my human cleric took "Racial Heritage, Goblin", by your reading would I gain Stealth as a class skill?

from the PRD:

Quote:
Goblinoid Subtype: Goblinoids are stealthy humanoids who live by hunting and raiding and who all speak Goblin. Goblinoids treat Stealth as a class skill.

Since I would now be a Human (type: Humanoid, Subtype: Human, Sub-Subtype: Goblin)?

Of if it was dwarf instead of Goblin, would I gain 60' darkvision?

Quote:
Dwarf Subtype: This subtype is applied to dwarves and creatures related to dwarves. Creatures with the dwarf subtype have darkvision 60 feet.

?

Just trying to understand your point of view better.

My first position was based on a misconception about racial heritage opening you up to favored enemy. It's a sequence of if this than that's going if you are affected by favored enemy due to racial heritage than you count as having the sub type of your heritage species, there is No language anywhere to support a new mechanism for favored enemy. Based on the feat specifying any effect rather than effect you and the GM agreed on you would effectively have the sub type, it is an always on effect from the feat. My positioned changed after realizing favored enemy was an assumption of forum users and not an official ruling. It makes more sense to me that you wouldn't count as having a new sub type, don't gain sub type special bonuses and are not vulnerable to favored enemy. The counter point as I read it is that somehow you do have the sub type but only for limited effects in direct opposition to the wording of the feat.

Dark Archive

Darche Schneider wrote:

Actually.. I would hazard on a no for that.. But at the same time, huh. That is some interesting things I didn't know as far as a character builder type of things went.

Does Goblin/Dwarf Subtype in the character builder automatically cost 1 or 2 points?

I could be wrong, but from my quick search, the only subtypes that cost in the race builder in the Advanced races book is half-undead, and half-construct.


As a follow on statement, I have never implied Racial Heritage was clearly worded or its intent understood by the masses. My only hope for this thread is either a detailed FAQ or hefty errata.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Any clarification that is done here would not be in favor of the human getting a tail in my humble opinion. Hands would be clarified to be able to grow claws (it is in the thread title...), Poison would certainly not be gained by the human, nor will a tail. Darkvision wouldn't be given by simply getting Racial Heritage, but a feat that would extend it would give the human regular darkvision.

I am not a Dev, of course, but I can see the slippery slope that Tail Terror can begin. It has even been pointed out, much to some ridiculed by those that feel it went to far into ridiculousness. Pots and Kettles are still the same colour, right?

Over 950 posts of two threads already, for the simple statement that...

If a human would gain the use of a tail, which he does not have, the damage would be 1D6 instead of the original 1D4 that was meant for the Small Creature, the original race that the human counts as for the effect of taking the feat Tail Terror. ...

Torbyne. Did you think your question about a half orc would warrant such a response?


thaX wrote:

Any clarification that is done here would not be in favor of the human getting a tail in my humble opinion. Hands would be clarified to be able to grow claws (it is in the thread title...), Poison would certainly not be gained by the human, nor will a tail. Darkvision wouldn't be given by simply getting Racial Heritage, but a feat that would extend it would give the human regular darkvision.

I am not a Dev, of course, but I can see the slippery slope that Tail Terror can begin. It has even been pointed out, much to some ridiculed by those that feel it went to far into ridiculousness. Pots and Kettles are still the same colour, right?

Over 950 posts of two threads already, for the simple statement that...

If a human would gain the use of a tail, which he does not have, the damage would be 1D6 instead of the original 1D4 that was meant for the Small Creature, the original race that the human counts as for the effect of taking the feat Tail Terror. ...

Torbyne. Did you think your question about a half orc would warrant such a response?

Honestly i didnt think there would be a problem with the tail terror part, i got that combo from these very forums! I was concerned that asking about natural attacks scaling by character size would rile people up since most PC natural attacks are scaled down a die size anyways.

My predictions are also rather conservative at this point: 1) No feats that build off any racial traits. 2) Cosmetic changes to a character's appearance are within reason and allowable, as always GMs have final approval. 3) There will still be dissent over the definition of racial traits and a lot of table variation.


thaX wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
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

...

Time to high tail it out of here?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I'm a bard, can i make a tale slap?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thaX wrote:

Any clarification that is done here would not be in favor of the human getting a tail in my humble opinion. Hands would be clarified to be able to grow claws (it is in the thread title...), Poison would certainly not be gained by the human, nor will a tail. Darkvision wouldn't be given by simply getting Racial Heritage, but a feat that would extend it would give the human regular darkvision.

Please explain why a tail is not a valid option, since people are actually born in the real world with tails (which can be up to several inches long, have nerves, muscles, and the ability to move)? And why the heck is growing claws okay in your mind, but a tail (which is a mechanically inferior natural attack) is not? I get that you personally haven't had any experience with the idea of a vestigial tail, but I don't understand why you feel like you have the right to be snidely dismissive of the idea that such people are even worthy of consideration in principle. As far as rules go, I have yet to understand why saying "no" to tails because people don't "usually" have them is any more acceptable or non-arbitrary than saying "You can't be blind because people aren't usually blind in my experience", or "You can't be of <race> because in my experience, people aren't normally <race>"? I'm not trying to bait you, I'm genuinely asking - is there a distinction you can draw that doesn't depend on arbitrarily defining who is "usual" enough to count as human in the game?

Oh, btw, please pay special attention to things like blindness/deafness - if your complaint is that a vestigial tail can have a mechanical advantage... well, so can not being able to hear language dependant spells, or not being able to see the medusa. I assume you are not going to ban players from having naturally blind or deaf characters though, right?

thaX wrote:

I am not a Dev, of course, but I can see the slippery slope that Tail Terror can begin. It has even been pointed out, much to some ridiculed by those that feel it went to far into ridiculousness. Pots and Kettles are still the same colour, right?

The slippery slope is a TERRIBLE argument. Not just here - everywhere. Basically, it amounts to the same kind of logic as the Underpants Gnomes from South Park. Step one, collect underwear. Step three, Profit! What happened in between? It's a notorious argument because it looks compelling enough on the surface to pass cursory examination, but ultimately relies on huge, unproven (and typically unprovable) assumptions, while denying even the possibility of a reasonable solution.

For example, we start in this thread with "I will allow any form of human who really exists", to "Thus you must allow humans with 24 legs and 12 arms" and then to "Thus you must allow me to be a 1st level human who is made out of lava and does 20d6 burn damage to everything", all without explaining why we should assume each step is automatically going to happen (there are easy, non-arbitrary distinctions that can be drawn between the situations), or that there are ways within the other rules as written to deal with those characters (as I pointed out), or that the GM can, at any time, stop the slippery slope simply by telling the jerks who are ruining his/her game that they have to stop - not because of a rules problem, but because they are ruining his/her game. Again, this is not 'arbitrary house rules GM fiat', because it has nothing to do with the rules either way. It's not banning a character because of the rules, it's banning a PLAYER from using a particular character because of behavior. It's really no different than telling the guy who always names his character "Fartz Dootypants" that he needs to class it up a little and change to "Pharlz Doughty-Prince".


It is somewhat funny bouncing between this thread and the crane wing one. There, many are arguing against the loss of choice with the new ruling, here people are demanding a new ruling to clarify the lack of options for those who want more. I don't think I'd like being a paizo moderator these days :/


Considering back about a year ago, the racial heritage thread back then asking if the racial archtypes and favored class bonuses was actually a heck of alot more civil too. Where one side asked if those things were an "effect of race" and people where like, "Well it doesn't actually specify.. but maybe it is. I'd rule on probably no." we find out later that yes indeed, they were an 'effect of race'

And now here, its a lot more of "No It Is not and you're a stupid dirty powergamer for even thinking that it is because you want Billions of arms and eyes all over my body and thirty thousand legs and fire breathing and level 40 of every class"

What a difference a year makes eh?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have explained my response to the RL .007 percent of the human population that gets a tail of a sort. It isn't really a tail like that of a lion, for example, that can adjust for balance and wave about behind him. It is an anomaly, something akin to one getting a third eYe.

Humans typically do not have tails. It isn't in the prevue of the character description or the flavor of racial likenesses given by the Racial Heritage feat to give a human a tail. Some here thing it is, just the same as it would give the Poison ability from another race, Darkvision of he had Dwarven blood and so on. It does not. Human are also Medium sized and are not light sensitive.

Tail Terror gives one the ability to Tail Slap with a tail. If one does not have a tail, you can't perform the Tail Slap. I don't know how else to phrase it, to spell it out, to put forth the explanation, to describe the overall nuance, to enunciate, put into words, show a chart, do a power point presentation...


thaX wrote:

I have explained my response to the RL .007 percent of the human population that gets a tail of a sort. It isn't really a tail like that of a lion, for example, that can adjust for balance and wave about behind him. It is an anomaly, something akin to one getting a third eYe.

On the subject of third eyes, what is your opinion of a character having one and what could be done if a character some how had a mutation that gave them a third eye?


thaX wrote:
I have explained my response to the RL .007 percent of the human population that gets a tail of a sort. It isn't really a tail like that of a lion, for example, that can adjust for balance and wave about behind him.

in what way is this actually relevant? i'm not trying to be an ass, but really... tails don't give an inherent bonus to balance related checks... so as far as pathfinder is concerned all tails are non-functional unless otherwise stated. also, the majority of human tails are removed in infancy shortly after birth. there really isn't enough data to presume that a fully grown human with one of the more developed tails would find it completely useless. additionally, the state of the tail before taking the tail terror feat is irrelevant because apparently you're arguing that the text is "with your tail". well that doesn't specify that the tail must seem realistically capable of making a tail slap so i should be able to do it with a pig's tail if i had one.


I'm looking at it solely from a RAW perspective. In Pathfinder, races that have tails are described as having tails. Pathfinder humans do not have tails. Racial Heritage does not alter the character physically. Tail Terror gives a tail attack, not a tail. You cannot make a tail attack without a tail. That seems fairly clear RAW. As for RAI, again I don't think either feat was written with a thought for the other.

Sure a DM can allow a character to have a tail but to say humans can have tails,by RAW, because it doesn't say they dont have tails is a ridiculous argument.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Sure a DM can allow a character to have a tail but to say humans can have tails,by RAW, because it doesn't say they dont have tails is a ridiculous argument.

only if you think that's the entirety of the argument or deliberately misrepresent the argument. which is that the rules don't explicitly deny humans tails and we see no reason that real world genetic anomalies should not be legitimate character options. as was mentioned before, you can be blind and that can have advantages and disadvantages like having a tail. or is it equally ridiculous to assume you can be blind? because if that's your position, i guess i have no argument. it is indeed exactly as ridiculous to think a player could start with a blind character as it is to think a player could start with a tailed human. both are not mentioned in the normal human entry and are therefore not allowed despite being real-world phenomena.


cuatroespada wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
Sure a DM can allow a character to have a tail but to say humans can have tails,by RAW, because it doesn't say they dont have tails is a ridiculous argument.
only if you think that's the entirety of the argument or deliberately misrepresent the argument. which is that the rules don't explicitly deny humans tails and we see no reason that real world genetic anomalies should not be legitimate character options. as was mentioned before, you can be blind and that can have advantages and disadvantages like having a tail. or is it equally ridiculous to assume you can be blind? because if that's your position, i guess i have no argument. it is indeed exactly as ridiculous to think a player could start with a blind character as it is to think a player could start with a tailed human. both are not mentioned in the normal human entry and are therefore not allowed despite being real-world phenomena.

Blind is a condition. A tail is a physical appendage. Pathfinder is a game with a set of rules.


was that supposed to have some relevant impact on this discussion? blindness and tails are both things that exist within the rules of the game. your comment doesn't address why you think one would be okay to start with and the other not...


cuatroespada wrote:
was that supposed to have some relevant impact on this discussion? blindness and tails are both things that exist within the rules of the game. your comment doesn't address why you think one would be okay to start with and the other not...

Because in Pathfinder creatures with tails are described as having tails.

Blind is a condition that can apply to any creature with sight.

Do you really not see the difference? (No pun intended. Well, maybe a little.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cuatroespada wrote:
thaX wrote:
I have explained my response to the RL .007 percent of the human population that gets a tail of a sort. It isn't really a tail like that of a lion, for example, that can adjust for balance and wave about behind him.
in what way is this actually relevant? i'm not trying to be an ass, but really... tails don't give an inherent bonus to balance related checks... so as far as pathfinder is concerned all tails are non-functional unless otherwise stated. also, the majority of human tails are removed in infancy shortly after birth. there really isn't enough data to presume that a fully grown human with one of the more developed tails would find it completely useless. additionally, the state of the tail before taking the tail terror feat is irrelevant because apparently you're arguing that the text is "with your tail". well that doesn't specify that the tail must seem realistically capable of making a tail slap so i should be able to do it with a pig's tail if i had one.

The point, to be precise, is that the "tail" a human might get is not the same functioning tail that other creatures have. A very small percentage even get it.

The Human in the game, as described in the rules, does not have a tail.

As for the hair, it is on your head, not out your nethers. Pippy Longstocking can certainly inconvenience others if she turns her head to quickly, but that would not be a tail slap.


@thaX, PCs are heroes with class levels... they already represent a small percentage of humanity. i still don't see why you think that a PC having a tail is unacceptable.

also, i didn't say "with pig tails". i said "with a pig's tail" as in the small curly thing on a pig's backside. if i had one (for whatever reason) it would be a tail and therefore could be used with tail terror. the details of the tail itself are irrelevant.

@Durgurn, yes, I get that they aren't the same thing, but again, humans are not described as "being blind" so why would it be okay for a PC to begin with a condition humans don't "normally" have? a tail is still a thing anyone could have regardless of how rare a condition it is.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Amusing.

Would it go "boing" when used?

The thing is, the tail like thing that a very miniscule percentage of Real Life humans get would be something that just hangs there, not an appendage they could strengthen and use as described in the feat. It is a crowbar in the argument, used to wedge in some other aspect of the overall discussion that isn't quite relevant to what is within the rules of the game.

To go outside the box a bit, the "tail" that Dudley Dursley got in the first Harry Potter film was, in every way, cosmetic. It simply hangs there, reminding the little brat of his poor choice of hogging the cake meant for Harry.

That a tail like thing is possible in a very limited part of the population of us humans in real life, that does not mean that a player can describe his Half-Orc character as having a tail at the point of taking Tail Terror so that he can use the feat.

Getting a tail would require something more than "ok, now I have a tail." A trait, feat (specifically giving a tail or the means to get one), class feature, turning into something that has a tail (Shapeshifting into a Kobold, for example), or something similar.

Or, of course, being a race that already has a tail, such as a Kobold, Catfolk, Tiefling and so on.


I ask again, can we please stop referencing real world tails either for or against racial heritage? The idea is not that racial heritage sites a better human vestigial tail, but if racial heritage allows any physical changes by itself or in conjunction with other feats. Real world has no bearing on it. Keep in mind I can have mutant gills from some modules or a tumor familiar or be legitimately descended from a demon but still a holy champion of the God of... I dunno fluffy unicorns. Real world limitations are tossed out very early on.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I agree, Torbyne, and echo your call to forgo the reference of RL humans that have tails.

Something else to consider. There is a new Player Companion book coming out next month. It is called Bastards of Golorian. This is a book that will be looking into Half-Elves and Half-Orcs and have Racial Traits and other things in relation to them. The blurb for the book mentions that it will have "A slew of generation tables to inspire grim character backgrounds and determine the physical features inherited from non-human progenitors."

Perhaps something can come from this...


thaX wrote:

I agree, Torbyne, and echo your call to forgo the reference of RL humans that have tails.

Something else to consider. There is a new Player Companion book coming out next month. It is called Bastards of Golorian. This is a book that will be looking into Half-Elves and Half-Orcs and have Racial Traits and other things in relation to them. The blurb for the book mentions that it will have "A slew of generation tables to inspire grim character backgrounds and determine the physical features inherited from non-human progenitors."

Perhaps something can come from this...

Oh yes, it is very much on my list already. I have nomadic savanna orcs and I want to compare them to the new desert orcs I heard are in this book.


Torbyne wrote:
I ask again, can we please stop referencing real world tails either for or against racial heritage? The idea is not that racial heritage sites a better human vestigial tail, but if racial heritage allows any physical changes by itself or in conjunction with other feats. Real world has no bearing on it. Keep in mind I can have mutant gills from some modules or a tumor familiar or be legitimately descended from a demon but still a holy champion of the God of... I dunno fluffy unicorns. Real world limitations are tossed out very early on.

I bolded what I second in this thread.

I notice that the other side always brings in the Real World for their argument. In a game. Designed around fantasy heroes, who are stereotypically never shown to have the everyday growth deformities that these "Real World Exploiters" seem to believe happens regularly (that I never do. Makes me think they're doctors or surgeons as a profession, since that's the only sensible means to say it's a fair occurrence).

If we want to argue about whether such things are possible period, sure, I fully agree that in the real world, people have all kinds of deformities and excess (or absence of) limbs; I see several mutations and conditions that others would consider not part of the game's rules.

But remember, we're arguing the game's rules. A major difference between the rules of a game made up by modern day humans (or humanoids, if we want to stretch it), than the Darwinian Culture of Real Life that the "Real World Exploiters" believe Pathfinder should consist of (but doesn't; to keep the game simple, abstract, [semi]coherent, and flowing).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

My feeling on this feat was it only allowed you to take feats, skills, archtypes, and spells for the selected race but didn't give you any physical changes. So no humans gaining advanced dark vision (as they don't have dark vision to start with) or tail attacks (as humans don't have tails, ignoring a few genetic freaks), or allowing you to take levels in Dwarven Defender as a human, that's it.

But that's my table and my game, I can see some people allowing Tail Terror and twerking someone but by my reading, you don't grow a tail.

Not that any of this will matter as I'm not a dev.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

all fantasy is based on the willing suspension of disbelief. that is based on the idea that things in a fantasy setting resemble the world you understand to a degree. gravity is never explicitly mentioned in pathfinder because it's one of the many aspects of the real world we assume about the setting. this isn't "real world exploitation". your assertion that it is acceptable for a human to suddenly gain severely enhanced masticular muscles to make a bite attack or to suddenly have their tongue elongate but not for a human to have a tail is putting a severe strain on my willing suspension of disbelief. if the tail is too fantastical, or if racial heritage doesn't allow any physical changes, then Razortusk and Agile Tongue are also useless to a human with racial heritage because without an implicit physical change a normal human can't take advantage of them.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

I'm looking at it solely from a RAW perspective. In Pathfinder, races that have tails are described as having tails. Pathfinder humans do not have tails. Racial Heritage does not alter the character physically. Tail Terror gives a tail attack, not a tail. You cannot make a tail attack without a tail. That seems fairly clear RAW. As for RAI, again I don't think either feat was written with a thought for the other.

Sure a DM can allow a character to have a tail but to say humans can have tails,by RAW, because it doesn't say they dont have tails is a ridiculous argument.

Kitsune are not described as having a tail, its assumed they have one.

I wonder what it would be like if there was a feat that you had to have red hair to take, or rather it refered to your red hair in the discription.

Quote:


Fire-haired
Your red hair symbolizes your latent connection to mischief and trickery, especially with fire
Benefits: You gain +1 bonus on saving throws against fire and damage you do with fire spells and weapons. Bluff and Slight of hand are always class skills for you.

Suddenly threads spawn and arguments go over what races are allowed and what races aren't. People wanting a race like kobold, tengu or deep gnomes to be able to take it get called power gamers and fights ensue over something silly. Cat-folk who take Black Cat feat become unable to take this feat, and people begin claiming that to be as raw, and over all limits on your character's physical appearance become greater and greater because now red hair becomes claimed as a mechanical advantage as it allows you to make use of this feat...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
cuatroespada wrote:
all fantasy is based on the willing suspension of disbelief. that is based on the idea that things in a fantasy setting resemble the world you understand to a degree. gravity is never explicitly mentioned in pathfinder because it's one of the many aspects of the real world we assume about the setting. this isn't "real world exploitation". your assertion that it is acceptable for a human to suddenly gain severely enhanced masticular muscles to make a bite attack or to suddenly have their tongue elongate but not for a human to have a tail is putting a severe strain on my willing suspension of disbelief. if the tail is too fantastical, or if racial heritage doesn't allow any physical changes, then Razortusk and Agile Tongue are also useless to a human with racial heritage because without an implicit physical change a normal human can't take advantage of them.

Except there are rules of Gravity in the books, as well as spells which spell it out without, you know, spelling it out.

Create Demiplane has this clause within it as a method of adjusting the gravity of your own plane:

Create Demiplane wrote:
Gravity: By default a demiplane's gravity is normal and oriented in one direction, like what most creatures are used to on the Material Plane. By selecting this feature, the plane's gravity is heavy, light, none, objectively directional, or subjectively directional.

There is also this section in the Game Mastery Guide that talks about the rules of Gravity in the game, and explains the assumed gravity one can place on their demiplane.

Because the game is abstract of what limbs are needed to qualify for so and so natural attack. As far as the game is concerned, if you have a Hand limb, you can qualify for a Claw attack, assuming you have something which grants you a Claw attack. In the same sense that, if you have a Tail limb, you can qualify for a Tail attack, assuming you have something which grants you a Tail attack.

The claim I make isn't that the Tail isn't too fantastical or whatever for Humans to have tails, and that's not the case. I can assure you in a past-tense fantasy game, Humans with tails would actually be more common than it is in this modern day, given the lack of surgical technology, the increase in poverty and anarchy, evil, etc. But of course, that's going a pure real life scenario; which, you know, this game isn't described as or portrayed to be.

The formula needed for your claim is bolded above. The problem is, without the former, you cannot do the latter. That is my claim. That has always been my claim. It has not changed, and there has been no irrefutable evidence to sway the claim, and until there is (which I am positive that there isn't), it never will change.

The assumed Humanoid limb structure (which Humans fall under) is explained in the Humanoid sub-type entry, which was cited earlier in the thread. A Tail wasn't in the list. This subsumes the whole "In Real Life, Humans could grow Tails" argument, since the rules of the game supersede the rules of what we would take as Real Life. If you want to deviate from the assumed Humanoid limb structure, that falls into GM FIAT territory, which most certainly isn't RAW, and isn't (always) RAI.

That's not even getting into the fact that we're talking about a feat, designed for a creature that is assumed to have a tail, that is not a Human, to make a tail attack with said tail, a point which stands for itself, and you have yet to argue against with nothing more than "Racial Heritage makes you assume physical characteristics of that race," which has yet to be proven by the claim of Racial Heritage, given that we haven't even proved that Favored Enemy would fall under such a thing, something that is even more qualified than a race's physical characteristics.

But I'll argue the RAI with you some, regarding the other limbs and the like. Why don't we go with a Human Zombie creature, which would have a Bite Attack (like you would see/hear in many zombie horror films). Jaws on a Human are meant for biting (off limbs) and chewing (food/flesh in our mouth for nourishment). I can also go by your logic that Nails were an adaptation from Claws, the same as the Tail Bone was an adaptation from no longer having a Tail (or surgically removing it).

Except, once again, the rules of the game supersede the rules you take from Real Life (or even D&D 3.5, which would have more precedence, given Pathfinder is constructed and based as a sequel from that). The rules of the game are that in order to make a natural attack, you need to have the limb associated with that natural attack in order to make the attack.


Cuatroespada hit the nail on the head.

The whole idea of having a racial prerequisites is because of physical differences amongst the races. That being the case, there should be an implicit understanding that taking Racial Heritage grants you any needed characteristic that a racial feat would require, provided that characteristic grants no initial mechanical benefit. So obviously things like darkvision and skill bonuses aren't granted, but things like tails and scales are fine.

The only difference between Tail Terror and a different racial feat is that Tail Terror specifically calls out what distinguishes a normal human from a normal kobold. That shouldn't prevent you from using Tail Terror via Racial Heritage.

If you argue that this isn't the case then Racial Heritage logically falls apart for pretty much every other use as well.

cuatroespada pointed out Razor Tusk and Agile Tongue as two very striking examples, but I think that this is the case for pretty much every racial feat. Even innocuous examples like Feline Grace (grants a few CMD bonuses) restricts usage to a catfolk body only.That prereq is essentially saying that the balance required for Feline Grace is only available to feline characters who have appropriate muscle/mass ratios, and appendages such as tails and whiskers. But no one here will say Racial Heritage doesn't let you use Feline Grace.

Any argument against the usage of Tail Terror via Racial Heritage is pretty much saying "Racial Heritage can morph and modify your body type fluff any way fitting for that race, except if such a feature is specifically identified in a racial feat or ability." And that doesn't make any sense.


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

I notice that the other side always brings in the Real World for their argument. In a game. Designed around fantasy heroes, who are stereotypically never shown to have the everyday growth deformities that these "Real World Exploiters" seem to believe happens regularly (that I never do. Makes me think they're doctors or surgeons as a profession, since that's the only sensible means to say it's a fair occurrence).

If we want to argue about whether such things are possible period, sure, I fully agree that in the real world, people have all kinds of deformities and excess (or absence of) limbs; I see several mutations and conditions that others would consider not part of the game's rules.

But remember, we're arguing the game's rules. A major difference between the rules of a game made up by modern day humans (or humanoids, if we want to stretch it), than the Darwinian Culture of Real Life that the "Real World Exploiters" believe Pathfinder should consist of (but doesn't; to keep the game simple, abstract, [semi]coherent, and flowing).

Thanks for this, as it exposes exactly what I suspected was the case. It is utterly unacceptable to assume that people who don't fit the stereotypical norm are not capable of being heroes, or that by default they are not allowed in the game, because of a racist/ableist/normalist assumption YOU bring to the table. It does not matter that you've never personally met someone with a vestigial tail, or that they are rare, or that you are uncomfortable with the idea for whatever reason. The fact is, people like that do exist, and they are every bit as "normal" and capable of being heroic as people who fit your stereotypical vision are.

Your appeal to the needs to keep the game "simple, abstract, [semi]coherent, and flowing" is weak sauce. It's appears to be nothing more than an attempt to pawn off the questionable assumptions you are making onto the rules, so that you don't have to be the bad guy. I assure you, the intent of the rules was never to specifically exclude people who are born differently than what you consider "normal", and even if it was the intent, the RAW text doesn't explicitly support doing that. Instead, the RAW argument against it requires interpreting language though the assumed image of a human that conforms to a certain arbitrary social construct of what "normal" is. If that assumption can be shown to be flawed, then necessarily the interpretation of the rules that flows from that assumption is also flawed.

Further, there is no coherent reason from you or anyone on that side of the discussion that explains how allowing humans to have a feature that humans in the real world ALREADY HAVE somehow makes the game world less coherent, or damages suspension of belief, or whatever else. There's no coherent argument that the expenditure of two feats to get a minor secondary natural attack to provide a mechanical effect to an rp-ed trait is somehow broken, beyond a laughable attempt to assert an utterly debunked slippery slope scenario. Basically, the complaint boils down to "I think it's ridiculous, and I don't want to allow it, so I will pretend the rules make that decision for me, so I don't have to own up to my own prejudices".

I am not sympathetic to that claim in the slightest, obviously. If you don't want to allow it, that's completely within your rights as a GM, regardless of rules status. Just don't pretend you're disallowing it for anything other than your own prejudices and assumptions. If the idea of having that conversation makes you uncomfortable, well, maybe that's a sign that you know your position isn't as strong as you'd like it to be, and instead of looking for specious rules interpretations to bolster your knee-jerk reaction, you should re-evaluate your initial reaction.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Because in Pathfinder creatures with tails are described as having tails.

Not always. Look up fox for example. Or lion. MOST creatures say nothing about about their tails.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sigh... and the circle goes around again...

The Kitsune...

"...posses two forms: that of an attractive human of slender build with salient eyes, and their true form of an anthropomorphic fox."

Anthropomorphic fox includes a tail, as pictured in the Advanced Race Guide. Please refrain from referencing this again regarding a tail when none exist line.

Humans have a tongue. Taking a feat that alters it to stretch is not the same as having a character gain a tail.

Humans have a mouth. Having a bit attack with a mouth that is already there is not the same as having a character gain a tail.

Humans do not have a tail. They still don't gain one because they gain the use of a Tail Slap. It is not there to slap with.

Their have been posts that have dealt with various examples and have attempted to explain yet here we are, right back where we started.

The Darkvision example, for a feat that would have a race extend it, might not be a feat per sey, but I would liken it to what happens when it gained through class features or racial traits. (those being exchange for one of the innate traits races have) If one does not originally have Darkvision, you simply have it for the original depth instead of doubling 0.

Darkvision was originally referenced because a character with Racial Heritage (dwarf) would not gain the innate ability of Darkvision. This is much the same as a character with Racial Heritage (Kobold) not gaining a tail.

To clarify, not having a tail doesn't mean you can't use the feat Tail Terror, it only means you need to effect a means to gain a tail to use it with. Being a Kobold would do it, they have a tail. Getting your GM's permission to add a tail to a human would be a way, though that would most likely not be possible in Society play. Getting a tail through a class feature or changing shape to a form with a tail would to it also. The actual taking of the two feats (Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror) can be done and isn't completely useless for those that can produce an effect that would gain the character a tail. Most likely, though, the original Half - Orc that is the subject of this discussion would be better served getting another feat instead.

I keep thinking that there is a peddler here, with a pea and three cups. The way the discussion is going, he is slipping the pea off the edge of the table and into his pocket, making the finding of the pea impossible. Nothing I nor anyone else says will convince some here of simple Common Sense about this particular combo. They keep wanting to pocket the pea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

Sigh... and the circle goes around again...

The Kitsune...

"...posses two forms: that of an attractive human of slender build with salient eyes, and their true form of an anthropomorphic fox."

Anthropomorphic fox includes a tail, as pictured in the Advanced Race Guide. Please refrain from referencing this again regarding a tail when none exist line.

Humans have a tongue. Taking a feat that alters it to stretch is not the same as having a character gain a tail.

Humans have a mouth. Having a bit attack with a mouth that is already there is not the same as having a character gain a tail.

Humans do not have a tail. They still don't gain one because they gain the use of a Tail Slap. It is not there to slap with.

Their have been posts that have dealt with various examples and have attempted to explain yet here we are, right back where we started.

The Darkvision example, for a feat that would have a race extend it, might not be a feat per sey, but I would liken it to what happens when it gained through class features or racial traits. (those being exchange for one of the innate traits races have) If one does not originally have Darkvision, you simply have it for the original depth instead of doubling 0.

Darkvision was originally referenced because a character with Racial Heritage (dwarf) would not gain the innate ability of Darkvision. This is much the same as a character with Racial Heritage (Kobold) not gaining a tail.

To clarify, not having a tail doesn't mean you can't use the feat Tail Terror, it only means you need to effect a means to gain a tail to use it with. Being a Kobold would do it, they have a tail. Getting your GM's permission to add a tail to a human would be a way, though that would most likely not be possible in Society play. Getting a tail through a class feature or changing shape to a form with a tail would to it also. The actual taking of the two feats (Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror) can be done and isn't completely useless for those that can...

I see your point and many others have made it but a human tongue can extend inches beyond your lips (for like... Gene Simmons and maybe a few others) Agile Tongue gives you a 10 foot reach with your tongue, 120 inches. To say that is a logical extension of an existing human organ but growing 60 inches of tail is beyond all possible scope of the feat just seems... arbitrary. Effects is extremely poorly defined and we can go back and forth over the definition of "is" but a dev comment to clarify is really the only thing that can end this. Probably not even then but i tend to be optimistic.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Except there are rules of Gravity in the books, as well as spells which spell it out without, you know, spelling it out.

Create Demiplane has this clause within it as a method of adjusting the gravity of your own plane:

Create Demiplane wrote:
Gravity: By default a demiplane's gravity is normal and oriented in one direction, like what most creatures are used to on the Material Plane. By selecting this feature, the plane's gravity is heavy, light, none, objectively directional, or subjectively directional.

players aren't expected to have the game mastery guide. in the CRB the only mention of gravity is in the spell reverse gravity. so unless you are already a high level caster and/or creating your own demiplane, pathfinder expects that you know what gravity is because of the real world. even the above description of gravity relies on your real world knowledge of what it means for gravity to be "normal and oriented in one direction".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actually I would even be cool with a FAQ that limited racial heritage to allowing entry into racial archetypes, using racial coded magic items and... full stop. Just nerf the crap out of it but leave us something that is stupid proof in interpreting.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
I see your point and many others have made it but a human tongue can extend inches beyond your lips (for like... Gene Simmons and maybe a few others) Agile Tongue gives you a 10 foot reach with your tongue, 120 inches. To say that is a logical extension of an existing human organ but growing 60 inches of tail is beyond all possible scope of the feat just seems... arbitrary. Effects is extremely poorly defined and we can go back and forth over the definition of "is" but a dev comment to clarify is really the only thing that can end this. Probably not even then but i tend to be optimistic.

It isn't logical, though, that is the point. It is using a feat to modify an existing part of anatomy. A human has a tongue. The feat for a grippli assumes that the race taking it already has the reach, but the absence of reach is what is arbitrary, not the fact that a human still doesn't have a tail.

A clarification will most likely address the issue, to be sure, but things like having poison in ones' veins or a tail out of your hind quarters shouldn't need to be quantified. Kobolds have tails. Humans (and their Half bros) do not have tails.

The real question in the thread title is if hands are enough to give one claw attacks. There are other rules that ferret that out, that the answer is yes. That the Catfolk feat assumes one has claws already is arbitrary, the claws are on their hands...

Edited... added quote to what I was responding to...


@ MrTsFloatinghead: Are you even reading over what you type?

At what point did I say in that post it was unacceptable to allow Humans with tails? In fact, I said after the post you quoted that by Real World physics, it's a more common occurrence in the given time period and setting of Pathfinder in comparison to how it is in modern day. All I said was that Real Life logic doesn't apply to a fantasy-based game with its own rulesets that supersede what we would otherwise take for granted. If you want to sit there and allow so and so to have a tail, when normal circumstances would otherwise say no, then that's fine. That's your game, and you run it how you want. But you then profess that the feature you're adjudicating is no different than playing the game that's published, and that's contradictory.

And I said again, that we were arguing the rules of the game. The Rules of the Game and the Rules of Real Life are two completely separate different things. What makes them one and the same, especially considering that they don't use the same laws and physics?

One could say that it's my appeal(, but I can assure you it's shared among more than just myself, because we otherwise get into situations where it just bogs down to debate and arguments. Just like we are now.) though they would be wrong, considering this game (and D&D 3.5, Pathfinder's predecessor,) were purposely designed to be what I described in quotes, for those same reasons.

And you don't agree with it, because you're under the impression that the Real Life physics of the modern world should be the same as the physics of the game. Except they aren't the same.

LARPing would involve a lot less imagination and pretending if that were the case, and the game would involve much more complex numbers and equations to calculate whether or not the force behind so-and-so's tail would hit so-and-so, etc. There are several other examples and situations where the laws of real life do not apply in the game that can easily be found. So why are you treating them as if they should? Because you want them to? Too bad the game that's published and the Devs behind its publication doesn't, which is what matters in the discussion. The Real World has little bearing on the published mechanics of a fantasy game, and why you're expecting to have the same bearing be reciprocated with Fantasy to Real World conversioning is not only foolish, but also improbable, given that the Real World, as we've examined, is set in stone in its production, involvement, etc. Whereas the Fantasy World that is in our imaginations, is open, growing, subject to change, and limitless in its entirety.

So much stuff in fantasy is imagination and pretending and getting something from nothing, and you're expecting me to make a claim that is on par with what you would expect from the Real World. This not only proves my point of them being and functioning as two separate entities, but it also asserts your claim as ridiculous, given that you believe they should operate on the same frequency.

The game wasn't designed to operate in the exact Real World manner, and while you can host home games that do, trying to profess those games as the same exact game that's published is horsepuckey.

On an unrelated note, I'm surprised nobody went into the James Jacobs Question thread and proposed this question to him.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thaX wrote:

Sigh... and the circle goes around again...

The Kitsune...

"...posses two forms: that of an attractive human of slender build with salient eyes, and their true form of an anthropomorphic fox."

Anthropomorphic fox includes a tail, as pictured in the Advanced Race Guide. Please refrain from referencing this again regarding a tail when none exist line.

No, sorry, Anthropomorphic fox does not, by definition, include a tail. You are assuming it does because A) you assume that a fox has a tail, even though the rules for foxes in Pathfinder don't actually say that, and B) you assume that an anthropomorphic human definitionally will have a tail, even though nothing anywhere in Pathfinder or in the real world says that. That is you interpreting language through the lens of your assumptions. This isn't necessarily bad - it's difficult to imagine any language functioning without recourse to certain assumed definitions. The problem is that you seem unwilling to confront or question those assumptions when it becomes clear that they are not accurate, and when they are possibly hurtful.

Thus, again, prove that a fox has a tail, in the text of the rules, then prove that a Kitsune, as an anthropomorphic fox, necessarily retains said tail (again, from the text of the rules), or else expect people to use examples like this to point out over and over again that what you present as a consistent view of the rules is actually just a questionable interpretation of language based on flawed assumptions. Just because the picture matches up with your assumption doesn't make it rules evidence, any more than your assumed stereotypical image of a human has any definitional impact on the rules.

thaX wrote:

Humans do not have a tail. They still don't gain one because they gain the use of a Tail Slap. It is not there to slap with.

Except, by definition, humans CAN have tails. The definition I am using for "human" is "Any being identified as a human being in the real world". Prove to me that my definition is inaccurate, or that it is less rules based than your evident definition, which seems to be "anyone who fits my stereotypical notion of what a human should be."

thaX wrote:

Humans have a tongue. Taking a feat that alters it to stretch is not the same as having a character gain a tail.

Okay... the Tail Terror feat says that it represents you strengthening your tail so that it can be used as an attack. If a human has a vestigial tail, how is a feat that says it strengthens that tail any different than allowing a tongue to grow ten feel long, or fingernails to turn into effective claws? Again, your only distinction boils down to excluding people who have tails from the game on the basis of your assumed definition of what a human should be.

Predictably enough, you closed out with another appeal to common sense. Here's my rejoinder:

Common sense dictates that the history of the practice of using "common sense" as an excuse to create a stereotypical "norm" against which variations could be judged, other-ized, and ultimately discounted as "inferior" or "defective" is an ugly one. Thus, common sense dictates that we should not use common sense in this manner any further. It's just common sense!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Darksol the Painbringer

I assume your responding to MrTsFloatingHead?


cuatroespada wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Except there are rules of Gravity in the books, as well as spells which spell it out without, you know, spelling it out.

Create Demiplane has this clause within it as a method of adjusting the gravity of your own plane:

Create Demiplane wrote:
Gravity: By default a demiplane's gravity is normal and oriented in one direction, like what most creatures are used to on the Material Plane. By selecting this feature, the plane's gravity is heavy, light, none, objectively directional, or subjectively directional.
players aren't expected to have the game mastery guide. in the CRB the only mention of gravity is in the spell reverse gravity. so unless you are already a high level caster and/or creating your own demiplane, pathfinder expects that you know what gravity is because of the real world. even the above description of gravity relies on your real world knowledge of what it means for gravity to be "normal and oriented in one direction".

Normally this would make sense, but by this same logic, players aren't expected to have the APG, ARG, UM, UC, UE, UCamp, ACG, Beastiary 2-4, etc. i.e. they aren't expected to take Racial Heritage, or play a Kobold as a race, the list goes.

Except players aren't expected to have any books. All of the game's information is on the Paizo PRD website, and it doesn't change the factor that all of the information is online and can be referenced as rules.

In fact, the books are published for convenience and ease of reference, as well as a marketing scheme. Players do not have to buy the books to play the game. They're welcome to purchase them so they have hard copies available for the players to look over, but it's not like the published books are absolutely necessary for people to play the game.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
So much stuff in fantasy is imagination and pretending and getting something from nothing, and you're expecting me to make a claim that is on par with what you would expect from the Real World. This not only proves my point of them being and functioning as two separate entities, but it also asserts your claim as ridiculous, given that you believe they should operate on the same frequency.

well that just isn't true. the imagination is actually incapable of creating anything new. human imagination only takes things it already knows and recombines them into things that can seem entirely unique.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

Normally this would make sense, but by this same logic, players aren't expected to have the APG, ARG, UM, UC, UE, UCamp, ACG, Beastiary 2-4, etc. i.e. they aren't expected to take Racial Heritage, or play a Kobold as a race, the list goes.

Except players aren't expected to have any books. All of the game's information is on the Paizo PRD website, and it doesn't change the factor that all of the information is online and can be referenced as rules.

In fact, the books are published for convenience and ease of reference, as well as a marketing scheme. Players do not have to buy the books to play the game. They're welcome to purchase them so they have hard copies available for the players to look over, but it's not like the published books are absolutely necessary for people to play the game.

good job ignoring the part where the game rules for creating your own demiplane require you to have a real world understanding of gravity.

the fact is that the baseline for any fantasy setting is the real world. anything not addressed is assumed to correlate to the real world. there is no rule that abnormal humans don't exist in pathfinder, so they can. they're abnormal, so they're the exception not the rule (which is a turn of phrase that essentially means that you're more likely not to see one than to see one and not a reference to hard and fast "rules"), but there is nothing in RAW that says all human PCs must be "normal humans" (whatever that even means).

551 to 600 of 1,170 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / 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.