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


Rules Questions

601 to 650 of 1,170 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Did you look at the illustration? They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Every Anthropomorphic animal, from every work of fiction and illustrations I have seen feature the humaniod animal as having some sort of tail. Further down on the next page is a feat, where the Kitsune gains more tails as she takes the feat again and again. Humans can't use that feat either, not because of the tails, mind you, but because they have no inherent magical abilities that the feat adds on to. Also be aware, when in human form the Kitsune don't have their tails.

Humans also can't make use of Realistic Likeness innately either, as they are not shapechangers and do not have a second form. Now, a wizard can use a spell...

Which definition are you using. I can't find it in the rule books. See Darksol's post above.

Are you saying that the Real World has bearing on what a Kobold's tail is like? That a Human should have a Kobold's tail to use with a feat? Do you realize how this sounds and comes across as?

So you have a quote about common sense from wiki. I am not ostracizing anyone here, being snide or looking down on the mutants. I am looking at an entry in the core rule book. No mention of a tail is present under all three races that are in question. So my thought is, if there was no tail before the feat was taken, how the heck can you strengthen it to use it for a Tail Slap.

You can not. You, as a human, do not have a tail. Simple. Straightforward. Clear. Concise.

No tail. No Tail Slap. Please stop hitting your head against the wall. You'll hurt yourself.


the real world does have some bearing on what a kobold's tail is like... kobold's are reptilian... their tails bear resemblance to an appropriately sized real-world reptile's tail...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cuatroespada wrote:

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...

Now wait a moment.

Now your going beyond the scope of this thread. You want to make a regional race of Humans that have tails. I see. I see.

Well, in the Inner See Region, we have several different regional types.

  • Azlanti
  • Chelaxians
  • Garundi
  • Keleshites
  • Kellids
  • Mwangi
  • Shoanti
  • Taldans
  • Tians
  • Ulfen
  • Varisians
  • Vuldrani

None are described as having tails.

So where does gravity come into play. Are the tails now weighted?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Point in fact. Kobolds used to be dog like and yip. Ever play Baulder's Gate?


where did you get a regional race of tailed humans? i only said that there's no rule in pathfinder that a human with an unusual birth "defect" can be a PC.

gravity comes into play because it's one of the many things about any fantasy setting that is assumed to exist unless otherwise specified because it's how the real world works.


thaX wrote:
Point in fact. Kobolds used to be dog like and yip. Ever play Baulder's Gate?

"Point in fact." you used the phrase "dog like" to describe them which requires an understanding of what real-world dogs are like...


cuatroespada wrote:
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...

Good point. I suppose that Pathfinder existed this whole time, and then at one point somebody was all like "Hey, there's this Pathfinder game. Never heard of it before, but it's totally been here and done that." Except it hasn't, and it took the imagination and creativity of a group of people, as well as their commitment, to bring it to the Real World.

Actually, I didn't. In fact, I'll happily point out that I took out the part of the Create Demiplane's RAW where it tells you to "See Gravity," for further details on the rules regarding the mechanics of the spell; several hardcover rulebooks do this, and disregarding them because "they're not necessary" or "they're not the Core Rulebook" doesn't mean they can't ever be rules. Considering that the other hardcover rulebooks actually expand further upon what the Core Rulebook originally established, calling them to not be rules is like saying Pathfinder isn't a Roleplaying Game, because it didn't come from the Book of Roleplaying Games.

And guess what? When the hardcover books make no listing and could otherwise be different from 3.5 D&D (which is this game's predecessor), then you'd be correct. I never said you were wrong.

The problem with your argument? It doesn't apply to this, considering the book makes a citation that is different from what would otherwise occur in the Real World. And since what's written in the book, for the purposes of playing the game, supersedes what we would otherwise imply from the Real World...


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Good point. I suppose that Pathfinder existed this whole time, and then at one point somebody was all like "Hey, there's this Pathfinder game. Never heard of it before, but it's totally been here and done that." Except it hasn't, and it took the imagination and creativity of a group of people, as well as their commitment, to bring it to the Real World.

there is not a single thing in pathfinder that is not derived from some pre-existing thing.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Actually, I didn't. In fact, I'll happily point out that I took out the part of the Create Demiplane's RAW where it tells you to "See Gravity," for further details on the rules regarding the mechanics of the spell; several hardcover rulebooks do this, and disregarding them because "they're not necessary" or "they're not the Core Rulebook" doesn't mean they can't ever be rules. Considering that the other hardcover rulebooks actually expand further upon what the Core Rulebook originally established, calling them to not be rules is like saying Pathfinder isn't a Roleplaying Game, because it didn't come from the Book of Roleplaying Games.

irrelevant. i'm not discounting those books. only pointing out that your understanding of gravity (and the idea of gravity described in the books) is the understanding we have from the real world and that with or without those books, you still assume the real world concept of gravity until otherwise specified.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The problem with your argument? It doesn't apply to this, considering the book makes a citation that is different from what would otherwise occur in the Real World. And since what's written in the book, for the purposes of playing the game, supersedes what we would otherwise imply from the Real World...

please show me the citation in the book that says that humans cannot have genetic anomalies.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cuatroespada wrote:
thaX wrote:
Point in fact. Kobolds used to be dog like and yip. Ever play Baulder's Gate?
"Point in fact." you used the phrase "dog like" to describe them which requires an understanding of what real-world dogs are like...

I didn't. The Monster Manual did. I just repeated it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
cuatroespada wrote:
please show me the citation in the book that says that humans cannot have genetic anomalies.

Show me where humans are assumed to be able to acquire them on a whim.

Show me the feature that allows them to take advantage of said anomalies.

Tell me, where does this actually come into play?

Describing your character and giving him abilities and appendages are one of two different things.

Ink black skin, ice blue eyes, no eyebrows and overly large ears... sure, knock yourself out.

Giving them tails, webbed feet and third eyes. That is beyond the scope of character description.


thaX wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
thaX wrote:
Point in fact. Kobolds used to be dog like and yip. Ever play Baulder's Gate?
"Point in fact." you used the phrase "dog like" to describe them which requires an understanding of what real-world dogs are like...
I didn't. The Monster Manual did. I just repeated it.

which makes no difference to the point i was making; the description requires an understanding of real-world dogs. i suppose you could argue that you could look up dogs in the MM or something stupid like that except that the description therein is also based on real-world dogs.

thaX wrote:
Giving them tails, webbed feet and third eyes. That is beyond the scope of character description.

apparently, only because you say so... i'm having trouble finding the RAW to support that.


cuatroespada wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Good point. I suppose that Pathfinder existed this whole time, and then at one point somebody was all like "Hey, there's this Pathfinder game. Never heard of it before, but it's totally been here and done that." Except it hasn't, and it took the imagination and creativity of a group of people, as well as their commitment, to bring it to the Real World.

there is not a single thing in pathfinder that is not derived from some pre-existing thing.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Actually, I didn't. In fact, I'll happily point out that I took out the part of the Create Demiplane's RAW where it tells you to "See Gravity," for further details on the rules regarding the mechanics of the spell; several hardcover rulebooks do this, and disregarding them because "they're not necessary" or "they're not the Core Rulebook" doesn't mean they can't ever be rules. Considering that the other hardcover rulebooks actually expand further upon what the Core Rulebook originally established, calling them to not be rules is like saying Pathfinder isn't a Roleplaying Game, because it didn't come from the Book of Roleplaying Games.

irrelevant. i'm not discounting those books. only pointing out that your understanding of gravity (and the idea of gravity described in the books) is the understanding we have from the real world and that with or without those books, you still assume the real world concept of gravity until otherwise specified.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The problem with your argument? It doesn't apply to this, considering the book makes a citation that is different from what would otherwise occur in the Real World. And since what's written in the book, for the purposes of playing the game, supersedes what we would otherwise imply from the Real World...
please show me the citation in the book that says that humans cannot have genetic anomalies.

I think you might want to explain this further. If it's mechanics, then you're correct, considering it's really only expanded upon D&D 3.5 (though I will point out it has its own set of calculations for certain aspects, and in those regards, it is its own subject). If it's concepts, then sure, I suppose that people cast spells in real life. They also use the mathematical formulae such as +2 to Hit when calculating whether the force behind an attack can conceivably cause enough damage to a creature's head. Except they don't. Hence my expression of why the Devs wrote the game to be abstract of such real life things.

And I never disregarded that. All I said was that unless the book (and D&D 3.5) doesn't make mention of it, Real Life has no application to the game's rules. If the book is abstract of such things, then yes, players concede to what occurs on the Real World. Unfortunately, as I said before, in this case the book isn't, meaning Real World does not apply.

It was cited earlier in this thread what Humanoids commonly have in terms of limbs. Going beyond that norm for a race that isn't commonly born with such a limb leads into houseruling and GM FIAT, which has no application when discussiing published rules.


Aranna wrote:

~Wanders back in and takes a peek~

Nope nothing new in hundreds of posts...
My position still stands then that in my game the trick doesn't work.

I know just endless reiteration


Starfinder Superscriber
Diekssus wrote:
Aranna wrote:

~Wanders back in and takes a peek~

Nope nothing new in hundreds of posts...
My position still stands then that in my game the trick doesn't work.

I know just endless reiteration

Just look at it as a Less Filling/Tastes Great argument.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thaX wrote:

Did you look at the illustration? They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Every Anthropomorphic animal, from every work of fiction and illustrations I have seen feature the humaniod animal as having some sort of tail. Further down on the next page is a feat, where the Kitsune gains more tails as she takes the feat again and again. Humans can't use that feat either, not because of the tails, mind you, but because they have no inherent magical abilities that the feat adds on to. Also be aware, when in human form the Kitsune don't have their tails.

Humans also can't make use of Realistic Likeness innately either, as they are not shapechangers and do not have a second form. Now, a wizard can use a spell...

Which definition are you using. I can't find it in the rule books. See Darksol's post above.

Are you saying that the Real World has bearing on what a Kobold's tail is like? That a Human should have a Kobold's tail to use with a feat? Do you realize how this sounds and comes across as?

So you have a quote about common sense from wiki. I am not ostracizing anyone here, being snide or looking down on the mutants. I am looking at an entry in the core rule book. No mention of a tail is present under all three races that are in question. So my thought is, if there was no tail before the feat was taken, how the heck can you strengthen it to use it for a Tail Slap.

You can not. You, as a human, do not have a tail. Simple. Straightforward. Clear. Concise.

No tail. No Tail Slap. Please stop hitting your head against the wall. You'll hurt yourself.

Way to double-down on doing the exact things I was criticizing.

First, the next person who says "You don't have a tail" or "Humans don't have a tail" or anything of the like should probably be flagged for offensive language in exactly the same way I would flag something like "Normal humans don't have <sexual orientation>, <gender identity>, or <any other phenotypical deviation from a supposed norm>". Seriously. Stop it. It's not okay. I don't care that it doesn't fit your mental model of a human. Your mental model of a human needs to change, or you need to justify that it's okay to exclude humans on the basis of their differences from you. I'm really not a huge fan of speech codes, because I believe they generally serve to mask problematic assumptions, instead of challenge them, but in this case, it seems apropos, given that we still have posters making the kind of broad, thoughtless claims they would never get away with making about other people.

Second, you ARE talking down to "mutants" etc. You are not alone in this - I've been trying to monitor my own language, but it's tough - I'm sure a few "defects" and "deformities" slipped through on my part. It's sad that our language doesn't have good terms for differences that aren't either implicitly or explicitly pejorative. Maybe that says something profoundly disturbing about the way in which our inclinations shape language, or maybe it's the reverse, I don't really know. It doesn't change the fact that I get that we are saddled with a language that often carries baggage we didn't intend. The difference is that I'm at least actively looking for that language and attempting to avoid it. I'm sick of the casual use of demeaning language going unquestioned simply because it's what people are used to, or because it's "just a game". Take a look at the blithe assumptions being made about what kind of person might have a vestigial tail (poor, living in industrial waste, etc), and tell me if you would be okay with someone using that language to describe you, sight unseen, on the basis of what they assumed "people like you" are.

Third, this discussion is not irrelevant - rules are based on language necessarily. It is not out of scope of a rules discussion, therefore, to challenge the way assumptions that people are bringing to the table affect the meanings of the words that make up the rules. Basically, I'm not debating with you what the words in the rules are, I'm debating with you what the underlying meanings of those words should be. Again - this is not to say that I'm making an in game balance argument, or RAI argument, or anything like that. I'm arguing that the rules as written operate only in the context of our understanding of language, that said understanding of language is not absolute, but rather a fluid social construct that informs (and is in turn informed by) our assumptions, and that finally those assumptions appear to be problematic, which means we should change them, and thus interpret the rules as written differently.

Fourth, the fact that you are again falling back on "every picture I've ever seen of an anthropomorphic animal..." just proves my point - you are interpreting the language through the lens of your assumptions based on your experiences to date. The fact that you've never seen an anthropomorphic animal without a tail does not, in any way, preclude one from existing, it just means that you haven't seen one yet, in the same way that you and Darksol having never met a human with a vestigial tail doesn't in any way make them less real or acceptable.

Fifth, my definition of what a human is is NOT in the rules, because the rules do not define the term "Human" anywhere. They don't ever say "this is what a human is, and anything outside of that is not human". At best, they say "Usually humans are like this...", which necessarily implies that sometimes they are NOT like that, and thus, again, provides no text basis for the exclusion you are arguing for. It certainly doesn't look or act like a sentence that I would consider a clear, concise definition. It doesn't even look to me like it has any intent to "define", only to "describe", which is not at all the same thing. The core of our disagreement is that you are asserting one set of assumptions onto the idea of what humans "usually" have, and I'm asserting another, broader set. I feel I have established why my assumptions should be the prefered standard. You are free to disagree, but RAW there is no textual basis for that preference, and the arguments about game balance, are, as I have demonstrated, probably specious, and outweighed by what I consider to be the moral imperative to not needlessly exclude humans from the definition of "human".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That, my dear cuatoepad, is because the rules are not going to spell out every little nuance and nit pick liken to a five page document written in lawereese saying "I own a dog."

Here, I will look up some things and put them here.

human from Core Rule Book wrote:


Physical Description: The physical characteristics
of humans are as varied as the world’s climes. From the
dark-skinned tribesmen of the southern continents to the
pale and barbaric raiders of the northern lands, humans
possess a wide variety of skin colors, body types, and facial
features. Generally speaking, humans’ skin color assumes
a darker hue the closer to the equator they live.

...

Human Racial Traits
+2 to One Ability Score: Human characters get a +2 bonus to one ability score of their choice at creation to represent their varied nature.

Medium: Humans are Medium creatures and have no bonuses or penalties due to their size.

Normal Speed: Humans have a base speed of 30 feet.

Bonus Feat: Humans select one extra feat at 1st level.

Skilled: Humans gain an additional skill rank at 1st level and one additional rank whenever they gain a level.

Languages: Humans begin play speaking Common. Humans with high Intelligence scores can choose any
languages they want (except secret languages, such as Druidic).

Bestiary 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 skills to 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.
Advanced Players Guide wrote:


Racial Heritage
The blood of a non-human ancestor f lows in your veins.
Prerequisite: Human.
Benefit: 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.
Advanced Race Guide wrote:


Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap
attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.
This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points
of bludgeoning damage. Furthermore, you can augment
your tail slap attack with a kobold tail attachment. For the
purpose of weapon feats, you are considered proficient with
all kobold tail attachments.

...

Kobolds

...

Physical Description: Kobolds are small, bipedal
reptilian humanoids. Most stand around 3 feet tall and
weigh about 35 pounds. They have powerful jaws for
creatures of their size and noticeable claws on their hands
and feet. Often kobolds’ faces are curiously devoid of
expression, as they favor showing their emotions by simply
swishing their tails. Kobolds’ thick hides vary in color, and
most have scales that match the hue of one of the varieties
of chromatic dragons, with red scales being predominant.
A few kobolds, however, have more exotic colors such as
orange or yellow, which in some tribes raises or lowers an
individual’s status in the eyes of his fellows.

Now, tell me, in the quoted text above, where does it say Humans have tails? Where is it that it says they can produce one on a whim? I don't see it, please point it out.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
MrTsFloatingHead wrote:
Way to double-down on doing the exact things I was criticizing.

Except your not critiquing. You are saying "Your wrong, I am right."

We, however, are asking or telling you, this has nothing to do with the Role Playing Game that is called Pathfinder. By continuing to be offended by the mention that Real Life tail affliction has no bearing on the discussion, you are assuming I shall gasp with a short intake of breath, apologize profusely, and concede to your premise. We already have a political landscape that is mired in this type of tired, obtuse way of discussion, I find it completely off base here.

Discussions of the things you mention are way off topic, and not set in stone, scientifically or socially. "Norm" is a sense of individual perspective, not a societal given. What is normal for you may not be normal for me. Wars are going on because those that believe in a certain way think it is normal to hate anyone that isn't of their own religion.

A discussion about whether or not a human within the confines of a Role Playing Game has a tail pales in comparison. Why bring it up?


human from Core Rule Book wrote:


Physical Description: The physical characteristics
of humans are as varied as the world’s climes.

This part right here allows for tails. You're welcome.


No, he's right. You're marginalizing actual human beings, which is morally reprehensible. Also, everything he said about language and its interpretation is accurate.


@ MrTsFloatinghead: I'll tell you what, why don't you rewrite the whole English language, or better yet, make up your own, and a dictionary to follow it, since it would appear that your usage of language is never offensive or improper.

It's called flaws, and it takes quite a level of character to admit one's flaws, and accept them.

You think we enjoy and laugh at people being born with "deformities" and "defects"? I'm sure people are absolutely brimming with joy at the fact of cancer and stumps of what used to be hands. It's all sickening and disgusting, whether I have these problems, or somebody else does. But it's something we have to deal with, and there's no other proper way to call what would otherwise be classified as a negative biological impact on a person's life than to call it that way. That's Life, my friend. It is what it is, and telling us to stop calling such things that way is not only a sign of being childish, in the real world, which is filled with disease, pain, death and destruction on a daily basis, but also a sign that you're taking this too personally and need to take a step back and reassess why you're really here arguing.

I'm arguing rules. You're arguing what would appear to be anti-mutation humanoid sentiments, which is not the core or the importance of the discussion. And if you're not making an argument pertaining to game balance/RAW/RAI/whatever that's related to the game specifically, then your input is irrelevant and I, as much as several other people arguing what this thread was designed for, would appreciate you either contribute to the topic at hand with relevant factors, or discuss whatever you wish to discuss elsewhere.

@ cuatroespada: You take the first line, and then ignore the examples that the first line expands upon: skin color, muscular composition, and cosmetic facial features. The former has no application to tails, the medium, although could be applicable, contradicts the books citation of what an average humanoid would possess, and the latter affects the face; if a tail is a face, then you'd be right. Though a tail isn't a face, so...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
thaX wrote:
MrTsFloatingHead wrote:
Way to double-down on doing the exact things I was criticizing.

Except your not critiquing. You are saying "Your wrong, I am right."

You are right that I think I'm correct, and that you're incorrect. However, I would assert that it's pretty unfair to ignore the part where I've carefully and thoughtfully explained why I think that way, which I feel meets the definition of criticizing or critiquing. Of course, if one were feeling generous, we could use another word for "questioning faulty assumptions about the world and attempting to provide preferable ones" - Teaching.

thaX wrote:

We, however, are asking or telling you, this has nothing to do with the Role Playing Game that is called Pathfinder. By continuing to be offended by the mention that Real Life tail affliction has no bearing on the discussion, you are assuming I shall gasp with a short intake of breath, apologize profusely, and concede to your premise. We already have a political landscape that is mired in this type of tired, obtuse way of discussion, I find it completely off base here.

I agree that claims of "that's offensive" are too often used to silence dissent and often end up masking the underlying assumptions, instead of challenging them. I said, in effect, exactly that before (because, magician that I am, I anticipated and pre-empted this line of argumentation). That doesn't change the fact that in this particular instance, I think that such a direct challenge may be necessary in order to get people to reflect on their language, and how they are using it.

Second, I don't expect any kind of apology from you, nor do I expect you to change your mind or shut up because you've hurt my feelings, or the like. What I DO expect you to do is reflect for a second on the very thing you acknowledged in your next paragraph - namely that what is "normal" is not set in stone, and can vary from person to person. Given that, as you conceded, "Normal" is a personal perspective, do we not have the ability to choose to alter those perspectives, to take into account viewpoints we might never have considered before?

thaX wrote:

Discussions of the things you mention are way off topic, and not set in stone, scientifically or socially. "Norm" is a sense of individual perspective, not a societal given. What is normal for you may not be normal for me. Wars are going on because those that believe in a certain way think it is normal to hate anyone that isn't of their own religion.

A discussion about whether or not a human within the confines of a Role Playing Game has a tail pales in comparison. Why bring it up?

First, again, it's not out of the scope of the discussion, because, as you conceded in your response to cuatroespada, the rules do not spell out every little thing - they rely on our understanding of the underlying language to function. They are not a rigorous language into themselves.

Second, you've conceded that those underlying meanings are not set in stone, and thus come down to personal perspective. At a bare minimum, these two concessions logically mean that, at best, your argument becomes "RAW can't answer this question, because it depends on how you define a normal human, since the rules aren't clear".

My argument is simply that we should prefer to use the definition of human which is not needlessly hurtful and exclusionary, because there is nothing in the rules saying we can't, and there is no negative consequence to the integrity of the game by being broader and more inclusive in our definitions.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So dark eyes, light skin, freckles and red hair equals tail?

You are seeing something that isn't there.

I am not marginalizing, I am discounting them completely, as they have no relation to the subject at hand. I would not even know about the tail afflicted if it wasn't for the web or a library. Most of us do not know about such things until they are pointed out.

There used to be, back before the world became more mobilized, these things called "circuses" that traveled from town to town. "Carnival" is another word. It would, among other novelties, games and such, have what they would term "freak shows." Two headed calfs in a showcase, the Bearded Lady, Wolfman, and various others. I suppose the Tailed Human could be a part of that.

The point is, it is a very small percentage of the overall population, something that the layman has no knowledge of. That someone would pull this fact, that a few of us fellow humans have vestigial tails, and try to apply it to a ruling in a hobby game and then be offended because of being told it has no real bearing on the game is simply baffling.

I am truly saddened that any of my words are considered trite or of ill consideration. Being tail afflicted isn't something that is a normal discussion around here and isn't something I had thought of as taboo. The inference here is that it is the same as being handicapped, blind, or of the mentioned proclivities I shall not repeat. I am deeply concerned that having this subject brought up in this way, in reference to a tail that is very much unlike the real life counterpart, is just to get this response and not much else.

Whatever is within the scope of the Real World does have an influence within the game, but not with interpretation. It had an influence when it was written and how the rules work.

There is one question that started this. 1D4, or 1D6?

There is another question that is asked after that. Do you even have a tail to begin with?

Within the rules, as it is layed out, a human, Half-Elf and Half-Orc do not have a tail.

So the question that everyone is stuck on is something that spawned this FAQ thread, and it is based on a flawed premise.

That question is; Can a human gain a tail by taking a feat that uses one?

It is flawed because it assumes that the description and features of a race is always in flux. It is not. This is Pathfinder, not a point based system where one simple buys a tail.


thaX wrote:


Giving them tails, webbed feet and third eyes. That is beyond the scope of character description.

PC's CAN take a third eye. There is even a trait to take avantage of it. See Mutant Eye...


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

@ MrTsFloatinghead: I'll tell you what, why don't you rewrite the whole English language, or better yet, make up your own, and a dictionary to follow it, since it would appear that your usage of language is never offensive or improper.

It's called flaws, and it takes quite a level of character to admit one's flaws, and accept them.

SERIOUSLY?! Did you miss the part where I specifically said that I know I'm not perfect on this front, but that I at least was trying to improve?

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


You think we enjoy and laugh at people being born with "deformities" and "defects"? I'm sure people are absolutely brimming with joy at the fact of cancer and stumps of what used to be hands. It's all sickening and disgusting, whether I have these problems, or somebody else does. But it's something we have to deal with, and there's no other proper way to call what would otherwise be classified as a negative biological impact on a person's life than to call it that way. That's Life, my friend. It is what it is, and telling us to stop calling such things that way is not only a sign of being childish, in the real world, which is filled with disease, pain, death and destruction on a daily basis, but also a sign that you're taking this too personally and need to take a step back and reassess why you're really here arguing...

I'm really arguing because lines like the one I just bolded are utterly unacceptable. Sorry, you don't get to say that the way someone was born is "disgusting and sickening" because they are different from your perception of how they should be. It's not an okay assumption that people with differences that seem to you to be a disadvantage are automatically to be treated as inferior, or to be pitied. That is the exact use of language that I'm saying is neither necessary, nor should it be tolerated.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I posted what I posted before seeing your response, MrTsFloatingHead.

What is not set in stone is the science behind the subjects you interjected in conjunction to a physical anomaly. Normality will never be something that is quantified or made. It is something that is a generic quantity, a normal day or an average week, what that intakes is up to the individual, not a societal expatiation. I, as a humble worker at a wholesale roofing company, would look at what a Nuclear physicist does and be amazed. He would shrug and say that what I saw is just a normal day.

The language of the text in these rulebooks are at a certain level to try and make their meaning clear, to be understood and easy to adjudicate when a particular instance has some underlining issues that were unforseen, such as a creature without a tail taking a feat that requires one. Not as a pre-reg, but to make use of the feat.

It is assumed that a human does not have a tail. He never needed one before this issue was brought to bear. To say it is possible for him to have one does not take into account that he didn't have one before this feat was taken.

I really don't see a reason to give him one now, even if a feat needs it to be used.

It is the pitfall of using choosing Feats normally meant for other races. It is why the term "common sense" is come up, to look at the feat in question and then see that it might not be the best option for the character.


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

I am not marginalizing, I am discounting them completely, as they have no relation to the subject at hand. I would not even know about the tail afflicted if it wasn't for the web or a library. Most of us do not know about such things until they are pointed out.

A) Oh, okay, your discounting them completely, not marginalizing them. That's fine then. ER... no.

B) Not knowing about something initially is not a good reason to refuse to acknowledge it when it is brought to your attention.

C) "afflicted" - oh, goodie, so having a tail is an "affliction". The only way to really top this thoughtless use of language would be to start talking about old timey circus "freak shows"...

thaX wrote:

There used to be, back before the world became more mobilized, these things called "circuses" that traveled from town to town. "Carnival" is another word. It would, among other novelties, games and such, have what they would term "freak shows." Two headed calfs in a showcase, the Bearded Lady, Wolfman, and various others. I suppose the Tailed Human could be a part of that.

*facepalm*

But no, there's nothing at all questionable about your language here at all. Good job.

thaX wrote:

The point is, it is a very small percentage of the overall population, something that the layman has no knowledge of. That someone would pull this fact, that a few of us fellow humans have vestigial tails, and try to apply it to a ruling in a hobby game and then be offended because of being told it has no real bearing on the game is simply baffling.

No, it's not baffling at all. You were making poor assumptions. I questioned those assumptions. Why should we let ignorant or erroneous assumptions stand, even in the context of a "hobby game"?

I was going to attempt to address your insinuations of my personal motives too, but really, it doesn't matter. Whether or not you believe I'm being genuine in my belief that your language is offensive doesn't change the fact that I've constructed a logical case for why a reasonable person could see it that way. Attacking my integrity as a critic doesn't affect the quality of the criticism at all. It's the fallacy of the Ad Hominem attack, really.

thaX wrote:

Whatever is within the scope of the Real World does have an influence within the game, but not with interpretation. It had an influence when it was written and how the rules work.

A) So, you concede that there are unspoken assumptions at work underlying the rules? Why then, can we not simply choose to reinterpret the rules from a different set of assumptions?

B) Interpretation of rules is necessarily interpretation of language, which again (AGAIN) means interpretation of the meanings of words, which rests on assumptions as above. Just because it's not the line of investigation you anticipated or wanted, doesn't mean it's not valid.

Look, you've agreed that people will interpret "Normal" or "usual" differently - I don't understand why you think its out of the scope of the discussion to debate what definition of "normal" is preferable in the context of a rules discussion that hinges precisely on what a normal human is allowed to be in the context of the game.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:


Giving them tails, webbed feet and third eyes. That is beyond the scope of character description.
PC's CAN take a third eye. There is even a trait to take avantage of it. See Mutant Eye...

What book is it in?

Does it give the third eye as a part of the trait?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
thaX wrote:
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:


Giving them tails, webbed feet and third eyes. That is beyond the scope of character description.
PC's CAN take a third eye. There is even a trait to take avantage of it. See Mutant Eye...

What book is it in?

Does it give the third eye as a part of the trait?

Pathfinder Player Companion: Quests & Campaigns.

Yes. It gives you a third eye, as part of the trait.


@ MrTsFloatinghead: You're assuming we're always talking about and making fun of humans with deformities, just because we call them as such. Even though it doesn't change the fact that because of them having such things, that we must treat them differently both mentally and physically because of it.

Quit saying we're attacking deformed people, because we're not. I'm saying that the fact people have cancer and missing limbs is disgusting and sickening, since those are more along the lines of deformities, and it's because if they had a choice, they'd wish they would have those limbs back, or not have cancer.

If we were against deformed people, you'd know, instead of blindly accusing us, because we'd be clinically depressed about stuff that, most, if not all people, would be depressed about.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Back and forth.

I still don't see how having a tail is equal to choosing a certain lifestyle.

When someone opens up the book, looks at the various choices and decides how to apply them to his character the last thing on his mind is social impact discussions.

If, in choosing feats, he chances into this particular combo (Racial Heritage (Kobold) with Tail Terror), there is a moment when a question comes through, as a human, should I take Tail Terror? Can I take it?

This takes some elementary thinking at this point. A tail is needed to use the feat in question. He can ask the GM about it, sure, or post a question on the boards. He can also figure out that a tail is not assumed to be a part of human physical form and know that a tail is needed for the feat to be used. Pleading for a tail and coming up with RL examples of tailed humans to convince someone that a tail should be allowed?

Why do you even need to ask?

Tail Terror need a tail.

Extra Gnome Magic need innate spell-like abilities

Go Unnoticed need character to be small

Bludgeoner need bludgeoning weapons

- - -

I know that there is a want to make this more serious than it should be, more complicated than it actually is. It still smacks like metagaming to me, optimization or getting one over.

"Ah Ha!! I now have a tail to smack you with!!"

I just don't see it.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
blackbloodtroll wrote:
thaX wrote:
graystone wrote:
thaX wrote:


Giving them tails, webbed feet and third eyes. That is beyond the scope of character description.
PC's CAN take a third eye. There is even a trait to take avantage of it. See Mutant Eye...

What book is it in?

Does it give the third eye as a part of the trait?

Pathfinder Player Companion: Quests & Campaigns.

Yes. It gives you a third eye, as part of the trait.

Thank you, kind sir!


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

@ MrTsFloatinghead: You're assuming we're always talking about and making fun of humans with deformities, just because we call them as such. Even though it doesn't change the fact that because of them having such things, that we must treat them differently both mentally and physically because of it.

Quit saying we're attacking deformed people, because we're not. I'm saying that the fact people have cancer and missing limbs is disgusting and sickening, since those are more along the lines of deformities, and it's because if they had a choice, they'd wish they would have those limbs back, or not have cancer.

If we were against deformed people, you'd know, instead of blindly accusing us, because we'd be clinically depressed about stuff that, most, if not all people, would be depressed about.

Not sure if you're trolling, or what, but I'm willing to assume you're being oblivious, not deliberately malicious.

First, yes, you are denigrating and attacking people when the words you use to describe them are denigrating and pejorative. The fact that you still don't see it that way is mind-boggling. No matter how well intentioned you are, telling someone that you feel sorry for their deformity or disability or whatever is tantamount to telling them that they don't measure up to the "correct" way of being human, and that's can be a pretty toxic thing to say, even if you didn't think of it that way.

Second, I don't know how many people you've run into who were different than you, but from the interactions with the ones I've had, I can say that it is highly questionable to assume that people want/expect/need to be treated differently on the basis of those differences. A person born differently (say with a non-functioning arm) may well wish to be "normal", because there is intense social pressure to be that way (like from oblivious well wishers who express their sorrow and pity at the "deformity"). That doesn't mean it has to be that way, and it is also possible for a person born differently to not have a hang-up about it, because you can't miss what you never had in the first place, etc.

Third, you have a real big problem with assuming that the things you think, feel, and believe are "normal", and thus should by default be accepted. I get that it's not comfortable to have your assumptions challenged - this whole thread has done a great deal to make me examine my assumptions about how I use language versus how other people use it, and about how optimistic I am about human nature. Be that as it may, as you said yourself - the mature thing to do is own up to your flaws and have the strength of character to admit you were wrong and strive to do better.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hello?

Are we even talking about a game, or hurt feelings?

So your upset about a normal perception of what a human is within the scope of a fantasy role playing game. I still don't see what it has to do with the discussion of this thread, and your long posts and meandering sentences are veering further off the rails and having less to do with the subject than before.

What does this have to do with whether or not a human, by the rules, has a tail?

Wait, wait... don't tell me.

I don't want to know.


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

I know that there is a want to make this more serious than it should be, more complicated than it actually is. It still smacks like metagaming to me, optimization or getting one over.

"Ah Ha!! I now have a tail to smack you with!!"

I just don't see it.

It's a serious discussion because excluding humans because you assume they aren't "normal" enough to consider is a serious problem.

As for the rules - you may well be right that the rules writers assumed that humans don't ever have tails, just like they may have assumed that they always have five fingers on each hand, two eyes, etc. Happily, those assumptions were not codified into the rules explicitly, and thus we are free to challenge them and discard them, all without changing the text of the rules as written or descending into some form of rules-less anarchy. (I also suspect that the use of words like "varied" and "usually" in the descriptions was specifically to acknowledge that exceptions to those norms exist, and that the definitions given should thus not be considered exclusive or exhaustive) You've already acknowledged that different people have different definitions of "normal" - I've established why I believe a broader interpretation is preferable, but you keep trying to defend your interpretation by minimizing the importance or relevance of the discussion, instead of providing a solid reason why your assumptions are better.

Finally, again, we come around to "It still smacks like metagaming to me, optimization or getting one over." This says two things to me. First, it says that you are afraid of your players, and believe that by default they are always trying to get one over on you in an attempt to ruin your game. It's sad to me that you feel that way, or that this would be your first reaction to someone trying something new that you didn't expect. If you feel this way because that's how your players act, and it bothers you, I suggest the problem there is not the rules, but the personalities involved. If you feel that way because the prevailing attitude on the inter-webz seems to revolve around breaking characters, I would suggest to you that the actual practice of the game is typically far removed from the internet theory, if for no other reason than the fact that GMs can simply tell people to knock it off.

Second, it tells me that you seem to lack the empathy needed to imagine that someone who is different than you might wish to represent themselves in a fantasy game where that difference is maybe no big deal, or could be an advantage, or at least where the difference doesn't preclude being a hero. This makes me even sadder.


Wow.

We have now gone from "No written rules saying I can't means humans can have tails As Written" to "Not allowing tails means you're a horrible human being."

What seems worse, assuming humans don't have tails because the vast majority of humans do not have tails or trying to shame people to win a rules argument?

I really hate these forums sometimes.


thaX wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:

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...

Now wait a moment.

Now your going beyond the scope of this thread. You want to make a regional race of Humans that have tails. I see. I see.

Well, in the Inner See Region, we have several different regional types.

  • Azlanti
  • Chelaxians
  • Garundi
  • Keleshites
  • Kellids
  • Mwangi
  • Shoanti
  • Taldans
  • Tians
  • Ulfen
  • Varisians
  • Vuldrani

None are described as having tails.

So where does gravity come into play. Are the tails now weighted?

None of them are described as having racial heritage other than their human heritages.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"My players?"

I prefer the term "Fellow Players."

As we put ourselves at the gaming table, we agree to a set of rules and common parameters. To bend those rules, add something that isn't there, or reflect an aspect to them that is outside the scope of those rules, that is what is giving discord to the role playing environment. If a GM told you, flat out, that a human can not have a tail without a feat, class feature or equivalent way to gain one, would you abide by that, or look for a different GM.

Would you think he is a raciest?

Would you think he is trying to hurt your feelings?

It is a game, not a social experiment. Not every social issue needs everything in the world to adjust themselves to them. Humans, as presented in the Pathfinder rule set, do not have tails. They never needed them. The reason it is an issue now isn't because someone was miffed that tailed humans were not represented, but because a certain feat needed a tail to work.

Yes, I am a bit wired and frazzled by your lack of understanding in this. Respect is a two way process, it is clear that you fail to understand that.

In my local area, a really good role player and fun GM was told that he could not participate in Society games in this area. Every character he has is an example of how to bend and break the rules within the scope of what the rules didn't say. I miss his characterizations and another GM that we lack, but it got to a point where it was not fun to play because he simply ran ruffshod with every scenario he was in.

This smacks of his play style.

With everything that you, MrTs., have put fourth, I still don't see what it has to do with anything about this game. At all.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Darche Schneider wrote:

[

None of them are described as having racial heritage other than their human heritages.

He was talking about a history of people that have tails, not a complete race write up. At least that is how it came across. The Azlanti are a bit different than the rest as they get +2 to all stats, though one needs DM permission to play them.

They still don't have tails.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:

Wow.

We have now gone from "No written rules saying I can't means humans can have tails As Written" to "Not allowing tails means you're a horrible human being."

What seems worse, assuming humans don't have tails because the vast majority of humans do not have tails or trying to shame people to win a rules argument?

I really hate these forums sometimes.

I can totally understand that. Granted its because of a completely different set of posters then the ones bothering you. Feel free however to use the internets off button anytime to get away from it.


no. no, no, no. If you want to go talk about genetic mutations in humans go start a separate thread,If you want to aruge about the baseline appearance of humans in the game than go start a seperate thread, this one is about the feat "Racial Heritage" in the game Pathfinder. Full stop. If you want to argue about "any effects of race" or "and so on" than go ahead, that is what the original question was about, it was the sticking point of the thread that started this thread. These last few hundred posts just serve to confuse people on the original question (bad) and bump the thread back to the top (...Good?)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, about Racial Heritage then:

It's an unwieldy feat, and it starts as early as the "fluff".

"The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins."

Some people posting on this thread seem to assume this to allow (or even imply) a direct parent to be of the other race, and believe this to grant many properties of the selected race.

Others, like myself, assume that the ancestor is supposed to be one many generations removed from the character, and believe that the character has little or no apparent properties of the selected race at all.

Both bring their assumptions along when reading the "hard rules" (benefit) part of the feat and let them color their interpretations.

Speaking for myself, I believe it should be absolutely out of the question to allow the ancestor to be a direct parent. I can't imagine the feat is intended to allow for a different way to create half-elf or half-orc characters, characters that would operate under completely different rules than the actual characters created as half-elves and half-orcs.

I also believe, because of a total lack of any mention of altered physical characteristics, that the feat doesn't actually change a character's usual physical characteristics as determined by his original race. Superficial, purely cosmetic hints of the selected race seem fine though, that's character flavor, but I sure wouldn't allow anything beyond that.

Basically, I'd recommend to just forget the first "fluffy" sentence and just focus on the stated benefit. That should clear things up a bit, though it does little to answer the original question.


Forseti wrote:

Well, about Racial Heritage then:

It's an unwieldy feat, and it starts as early as the "fluff".

"The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins."

Some people posting on this thread seem to assume this to allow (or even imply) a direct parent to be of the other race, and believe this to grant many properties of the selected race.

Others, like myself, assume that the ancestor is supposed to be one many generations removed from the character, and believe that the character has little or no apparent properties of the selected race at all.

Both bring their assumptions along when reading the "hard rules" (benefit) part of the feat and let them color their interpretations.

Speaking for myself, I believe it should be absolutely out of the question to allow the ancestor to be a direct parent. I can't imagine the feat is intended to allow for a different way to create half-elf or half-orc characters, characters that would operate under completely different rules than the actual characters created as half-elves and half-orcs.

I also believe, because of a total lack of any mention of altered physical characteristics, that the feat doesn't actually change a character's usual physical characteristics as determined by his original race. Superficial, purely cosmetic hints of the selected race seem fine though, that's character flavor, but I sure wouldn't allow anything beyond that.

Basically, I'd recommend to just forget the first "fluffy" sentence and just focus on the stated benefit. That should clear things up a bit, though it does little to answer the original question.

Seriously dude, this is the kind of comment I was hoping for, you see where there is confusion and back up your interpretation. And no implying someone who sees things differently is trying to cheat or lacks mental capacity :)

Honestly the feat could solve a lot of this by just adding word "distant" right before ancestor. Though I would prefer an all or nothing ruling on feats that change physical characteristics. Although if they went all they would need to do more to clarify feats that build on or change racial mechanics... still, this has to be on their radar by now. Maybe once crane wing blows over they can spare some people power over here.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The original question was answered long ago, though on another thread and brought about the question in the title.

The tail slap for a medium creature most likely would be a step up from a small creature, despite what is listed in the feat. (It would be 1d6 damage instead of 1d4)

That a half-orc doesn't have a tail to use to do that 1d6 damage is the underlining issue up for debate.

The question of the thread, however, is simple enough. One would get claws as the feat if one has hands. One would not get the inherent poison the feat would make use of within ones veins to use on weapons like Alejia Netrav (Female Vishkanya Magus).

As Forseti mentions above, the host race doesn't change, just the ability to be affected as another race and have the ability to take feats/traits/etc that normally wouldn't be allowed. As various feats and traits are written, they focus on the race they are written for, not the one that gets them through another way, such at Racial Heritage.

Again, I shall bring up the use of "common sense" to figure that some of those that are fine for the original race might not gel or be right for the new host race that is taking them instead.

Thank you, Forseti, for a fresh perspective and a thoughtful post.


Forseti wrote:

Well, about Racial Heritage then:

It's an unwieldy feat, and it starts as early as the "fluff".

"The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins."

Some people posting on this thread seem to assume this to allow (or even imply) a direct parent to be of the other race, and believe this to grant many properties of the selected race.

Others, like myself, assume that the ancestor is supposed to be one many generations removed from the character, and believe that the character has little or no apparent properties of the selected race at all.

Both bring their assumptions along when reading the "hard rules" (benefit) part of the feat and let them color their interpretations.

Speaking for myself, I believe it should be absolutely out of the question to allow the ancestor to be a direct parent. I can't imagine the feat is intended to allow for a different way to create half-elf or half-orc characters, characters that would operate under completely different rules than the actual characters created as half-elves and half-orcs.

I also believe, because of a total lack of any mention of altered physical characteristics, that the feat doesn't actually change a character's usual physical characteristics as determined by his original race. Superficial, purely cosmetic hints of the selected race seem fine though, that's character flavor, but I sure wouldn't allow anything beyond that.

Basically, I'd recommend to just forget the first "fluffy" sentence and just focus on the stated benefit. That should clear things up a bit, though it does little to answer the original question.

Finally back on track, the whole arguing morals thing was getting old and really unimportant anyway. +1 for this.

I argue the side that while one can take feats required by the race selected, it does not mean you supersede the inherent requirements of the feats themselves. That is, in the most commonly referred example, even when we allow so and so character to take the Tail Terror feat, which grants a Tail Attack, it does not change the fact that in order to make a Tail Attack, you need the proper limb in order to make the attack with. Which is a Tail.

Several have claimed that the effects of the Racial Heritage feat give you the ability to grow limbs. However, there are several glaring issues that present themselves which would at the very least question the concept. Firstly, Racial Heritage says you are counted as a selected Humanoid Race in terms of any effects related to race. There is no concise evidence being presented that says being a race or having a limb is an effect of being that race, hence why we are saying they are "making stuff up". Secondly, the feat has listed prime examples of what would qualify for it, none of them containing language supporting the opposed claim.

Others have (also) claimed that the effects of Tail Terror working in conjunction with Racial Heritage can grow a Tail. This shares similar problems with the former claim, as well as an additional issue; the feat was designed for a creature that is originally stated to have possession of a tail limb. Since the Kobold, the creature of which the feat was designed for, is specified to have a Tail, the issue of lacking such a limb was never an issue. When we start to compare this situation with other Humanoids who are not expressly stated to have (or atleast shown to commonly have possession of) a tail, that's when we get into the "Lack of Limb = Lack of Ability to Make Attack" conundrum cited previously.

Even more have (also) claimed that the physical description of Humans has the possibility of granting a tail. Although Real Life instances have occurred, their application means little to nothing when there is text that overrides what we would otherwise take for granted. The Physical Description of Humans states of skin color, muscular composition, and facial features as being the most varied among the race. There is nothing listed that would supersede the assumed generic composition of everyday Humanoids (and Humans, specifically), which is 2 Arms, 2 Legs, 1 Torso, 1 Head.

While the claim of being able to make a Tail Attack as a Human is not completely dismissable, it needs more information (and essentially, character resources,) to get the desired effect from what is to be claimed. As it stands, having simply Racial Heritage (Kobold) and Tail Terror is not enough.

The defense rests.


I would just state your second major paragraph touches on the only point of confusion for me. As to the effects of race, effects was perhaps a poor word choice as it is not solidly defined in game terms and that is the crux of the differing interpretations of the feat from what I can see. Still not sure what real world genetic mutations have to do with the game or this feat for what that's worth.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Effects of a race within a race that race to provide racial effects....

Ack... that hurt!!

It was introduced by Grady a while back to argue that a tail is an effect of the human race brought forth by Racial Heritage. That Tail Terror should necessitate the need to sprout a tail to use with it since the character is already spending two feats and shouldn't be bothered by the fact that humans normally do not have tails.

I didn't agree, of course, neither did most of the posters on both threads. He was alone for a bit with this assertion until a few others began to bring their own ideas, not specifically agreeing with Grady but siding with him as they brought in other terminology and different ways to effectively say that a tail should be allowed, going from there to "well, of course a human can have a tail, it doesn't say it right there."

As to what we got to 600 pages later, I will invite the new reader to read the entire thread as an exercise on how many ways one can say "But we want a tail!!"

I maintain that a tail is not forthcoming for the poor Human, half-elf or half-orc. (As the half races can take this feat, Racial Heritage, also) The fine post by Darksol really puts it into a clear, concise synopsis, and I agree with his assessment. Any FAQ that is put forth will, most likely, affirm our position and clarify the need for the various limbs, abilities, attributes and so on to be present on the host race for them to be able to use such feats.

I just am flabbergasted at the overall confusion one would have over this simple issue. This is almost as bad as one of my players wanting to play an Assassin.

Webstore Gninja Minion

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a warning to be civil to each other. Not everybody plays the game the same way, folks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would be more accurate to say that some people cant find the sense in feat + feat equaling a ten foot tongue, Glands that can spray blinding venom, the claws of a rather terrifying predator, wings and the ability to fly and several other thing which all essentially turn something with no mechanical effect into something with a mechanical effect but tail terror stands out as being unable to do so rather arbitrarily due to the possibly or possibly not simply redundant wording 'With your tail'.

There was also a good deal of mudslinging around what was or was not fluff including my personal favorite a very Matrix like take that there in fact is no fluff and everything is part of the rules this lead to a lot of people trying to figure out just what this could all add up to such as well tails and freckles both aren't mentioned so you cant have either, to of course humans can have freckles real people have freckles, then that lead to real people have tails which was of course countered by the cunning those tails don't count you have to make a prosthetic tail. There was also an interesting foray into you have to allow PCs to have tails or you're not being politically correct.During all of this people stating that because they viewed it one way intuitively that those who didn't view it that way were without common sense and that anyone who thought it wasn't perfectly clear that it was in fact there was was somehow impaired rather than just in disagreement. Many people on both sides of the argument either staying and stomping. Its also been sprinkles with enough slippery slope arguments to impress someone like me who grew up frequently visiting Aspen and enough cherry picking that no man will ever again want for jam.

I'm sure I missed a tirade or two in all of that and a few tangents to be sure but thats what a recall at the moment.. Good times.


VargrBoartusk wrote:

It would be more accurate to say that some people cant find the sense in feat + feat equaling a ten foot tongue, Glands that can spray blinding venom, the claws of a rather terrifying predator, wings and the ability to fly and several other thing which all essentially turn something with no mechanical effect into something with a mechanical effect but tail terror stands out as being unable to do so rather arbitrarily due to the possibly or possibly not simply redundant wording 'With your tail'.

There was also a good deal of mudslinging around what was or was not fluff including my personal favorite a very Matrix like take that there in fact is no fluff and everything is part of the rules this lead to a lot of people trying to figure out just what this could all add up to such as well tails and freckles both aren't mentioned so you cant have either, to of course humans can have freckles real people have freckles, then that lead to real people have tails which was of course countered by the cunning those tails don't count you have to make a prosthetic tail. There was also an interesting foray into you have to allow PCs to have tails or you're not being politically correct.During all of this people stating that because they viewed it one way intuitively that those who didn't view it that way were without common sense and that anyone who thought it wasn't perfectly clear that it was in fact there was was somehow impaired rather than just in disagreement. Many people on both sides of the argument either staying and stomping. Its also been sprinkles with enough slippery slope arguments to impress someone like me who grew up frequently visiting Aspen and enough cherry picking that no man will ever again want for jam.

I'm sure I missed a tirade or two in all of that and a few tangents to be sure but thats what a recall at the moment.. Good times.

Yes, completely agree with this. I was just reading another thread where they were talking about scaled disciple being a better feat for humans than it is for kobold. Granted scales are only mentioned in the name but all of a sudden that is a fluffy descriptor and not a literal rule saying you must have scales. I am sure that will rub some people the wrong way, just as tail terror does.

I understand the lack of limb argument but the agile tongue example makes less sense for me than the tail just due to the degree of change involved. But I also get that's just my opinion.

All of that mud slinging just needs to go, we all are or pretend to be mature adults here, we can do this :)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

For the scales, to be complete, I would say that the skin of the human would take on a coloured hue, much like spell Stone Skin would do. I would venture to say that if the player wanted scales, it isn't beyond the scope since it is basically a different sorta skin.

I and other have responded about the various examples. The actual parts needed are there, cept for the poison (Which is in the question of the thread), wings and tail. The example that got a lot of grief is the one where if you get the tail, then is the character small, light sensitive and etc.

To be sure, this has, to me, been a funny example of how an argument continues unabated on such a simple situation.

601 to 650 of 1,170 << first < prev | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 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.