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.
yeah, this.
but to be fair, it wasn't that not allowing PCs to have tails means you're not being politically correct so much as saying that a human with a tail could not be a heroic person and therefore PC because the PCs are the heroes was morally reprehensible. if you just don't want a PC human with a tail at your table, that's your business and i really don't care, but to declare (not even just imply) that actual humans simply by virtue of having been born with tails must be poor and have been exposed to radiation, etc. is a bit out of line.
Superficial, purely cosmetic hints of the selected race seem fine though, that's character flavor, but I sure wouldn't allow anything beyond that.
It's worth noting that a Kobold's tail is "purely cosmetic." There is no mechanical advantage. A Kobold without a tail is functionally identical to a kobold with one. It does absolutely nothing.
Unless you take Tail Terror.
So, if Racial Heritage is capable of granting purely cosmetic physical features, then a tail is among the options.
Superficial, purely cosmetic hints of the selected race seem fine though, that's character flavor, but I sure wouldn't allow anything beyond that.
It's worth noting that a Kobold's tail is "purely cosmetic." There is no mechanical advantage. A Kobold without a tail is functionally identical to a kobold with one. It does absolutely nothing.
Unless you take Tail Terror.
So, if Racial Heritage is capable of granting purely cosmetic physical features, then a tail is among the options.
Actually, there is. It serves as an extra limb when in other cases the character would not have them. It allows the use of abilities that require such a limb. There is no denying it simply because the player does not take the feats that enable the usage of the tail. It's still there, it still opens doors that would otherwise not be open because of it, and that in itself is a mechanical advantage, just like the addition of a hand or a leg would be.
@cuatroespada: You're arguing about something that is irrelevant to the topic. Morals have no place in a discussion of rules and mechanics of a game, and quite frankly we're not discussing about the hurt feelings of those who have tails in comparison to those who do not, we're here to discuss whether the ability to have a tail from simply possessing Racial Heritage (and another corresponding feat that requires limbs). Either contribute relevant factors to the thread, as Doomed Hero is, or take your business elsewhere to those who would discuss it with you. (Such as making your own thread on the matter.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, there is. It serves as an extra limb when in other cases the character would not have them. It allows the use of abilities that require such a limb. There is no denying it simply because the player does not take the feats that enable the usage of the tail. It's still there, it still opens doors that would otherwise not be open because of it, and that in itself is a mechanical advantage, just like the addition of a hand or a leg would be.
Look, you're hung up on the tail and what it does.
It doesn't do anything.
Kobolds have them, but they might as well not. None of their racial characteristics have anything to do with their tail. Their tail is about as mechanically advantageous as the color of a human's hair.
And yet, you somehow think that it's the tail that is the important factor in terms of mechanics.
Let's take a look at the feat. See the prerequisites? What do they say? Have Tail? No.
They say be a kobold.
A human with racial heritage counts as a kobold.
They might have a tail, they might not, but in either case, their tail/lack of tail would offer that human the exact same non-benefit as a regular kobold gets.
So then, when Tail Terror is taken, that non-benifit becomes a benefit.
Does that means the human suddenly grew a tail? Or already had one? Does it mean Racial Heritage can grant cosmetic appearance changes? Can those changes continue to change throughout the game?
Who cares?
Explain it away in whatever way best suits the game and get on with the fun.
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.
Holy mackerel, this!^^^^^^^^^^^^^
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.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.
Give it up, already. He explained that the kitsune's tail is pictured (there is a PICTURE OF IT) in the Advanced Race Guide. Your argument against his assumptions holds no water because he makes no assumptions; there is incontrovertible visual proof that the kitsune has a tail. Oh, and guess what: Humans? They don't have tails.
Superficial, purely cosmetic hints of the selected race seem fine though, that's character flavor, but I sure wouldn't allow anything beyond that.
It's worth noting that a Kobold's tail is "purely cosmetic." There is no mechanical advantage. A Kobold without a tail is functionally identical to a kobold with one. It does absolutely nothing.
Unless you take Tail Terror.
So, if Racial Heritage is capable of granting purely cosmetic physical features, then a tail is among the options.
Kobolds do use their tail to emote, so it has a function beyond the cosmetic even without an upgrade feat.
Would we be having the same discussion about half-elves and humans with Racial Heritage (Elf) if Paizo came up with a "Twitchy Pointed Ears" feat that lets an elf do something special with his pointed ears?
Torbyne, the rage power mentioned by Neonpeekaboo, as written and intended, is meant to show that you are such an animal in combat, as a barbarian, that you can use your hands/fingernails as 1d6 claw attacks. There is no ambiguity there and you definitely don't grow claws. You gain a mechanical claw attack, but they still use your regular (non-clawed) hands. You don't suddenly become a grotesque half-animal. If you don't understand how fingernails could be used as an advantage in this way, then you've got some bigger issues you need to work on.
On the other hand, if it's actual claws you're after, play a ranger or a druid.
In fact, if you want to take racial heritage (kobold) and tail terror and you're playing as a shapechanging druid or ranger, be my guest! Swing away with your tail.
Kobolds do use their tail to emote, so it has a function beyond the cosmetic even without an upgrade feat.
I'm going to actually ask you to back this up with rules citations. I'm not saying there are none, but for purpose of making this argumentation, please cite the rules so I can look it up. I'm fine if there are some, but I'm curious about it.
Also, being able to emote via tail doesn't actually grant them a mechanical advantage, which is what the rules cover by default.
There is a mechanical advantage. With a tail, you can take feats that grant natural attacks and use special items that a character without a tail cannot.
What special items? What feats?
Something that allows a player a choice or ability, even a potential one, that another character cannot, is a mechanical advantage.
That "something" would be the feat in question - the one that you can't get Tail Terror without. That is a mechanical advantage. Without that feat there is no mechanical advantage.
In 3rd Edition, there was a trait that forced your character to have heterochromia, and gave mechanical differentiation for it, but, you know, prior to that specific update the same thing did nothing mechanically.
THAT SAID, I'm still not sold on the RAW one way or the other, but these arguments need some clarification for their weakness.
The feat says "with your tail" - it presumes you have a tail. A tail is not required to use a feat. Thus the mechanics are ambiguous until errata'd. It can be read as gaining a tail attack (and thus a tail), it can be fluffed as having an otherwise non-functional tail prior to gaining the attack (similar to real-life mutation or due to kobold heritage), or it can be read as being worthless unless you somehow acquire a tail.
ALL OF THESE ARE VALID READINGS, however, given the most common English understandings, the presumption is that a tail already exists, and thus you wouldn't grow one.
That said, given that people are A-okay with suddenly having a really long prehensile tongue (among other racial feats), the arguments against the tail are very dissonant.
Other things that that make the line of argumentation against allowing Tail Terror really odd.
Mutant Eye - verified that humans can be weird; in this case it takes a trait, though
Eye of the Falcon - just to be clear, despite the name, you don't actually have to have "the" Falcon's eye for this trait
Looking for Work - despite the name of this trait, you can, in fact, be "looking for work" without this trait
Issian - again, despite the name of this trait, you can, in fact, be from northern Brevoy (and be Issian) without this trait
Gregarious - you can be gregarious without this trait, but for no other mechanical benefit; heck, you can have this exact back-story without the mechanical benefit
Good Dreams - ... unless you're telling me that mechanically you can't have good dreams without this trait...
Freed Slave - ... or be a freed slave without this one...
Urchin - ... or that you can't be an urchin without this trait...
Lucid Dreamer - ... or that you can't have lucid dreams without this trait...
Optimistic Gambler - ... or an optimistic gambler without this trait (especially harsh, since it only takes place in a single campaign)...
Monument Scholar - ... or that you can't be a scholar of monuments unless you live in Magnimar and are part of the Shattered Star adventure path...
And so on.
I mean, Description doesn't cover any of this - the character sheet descriptions just have homeland, race, size, gender, age, height and weight, hair, and eyes. What if you're playing a character without eyes? Or without hair? Or with scales instead of hair? Or whiskers? Missing a nose? Eyepatch? Missing teeth? No fingernails (and can these guys become barbarians with a Rage Power that doesn't require nails or claws to take)?
Now, race might cover your comprehension of "what's included" in the physical description of the character, but mechanically there is no such thing. The fluff can either note that a given creature does have a trait or does not, but if it doesn't say, there is no reason to presume beyond personal assumptions. This includes looking at artwork.
All of the Pathfinder Art I've ever seen shows glowing runes circling around hands and heads of those using magic. I've never seen those described in mechanics or seen any kind of mechanical effect (though I've noted people attempt to extrapolate a mechanical effect from them). The only thing they do is make casting many still/silent illusion spells more or less worthless and/or degrade the immersion of human beings and magical illusion effects in general.
My point is only:
1) If you say, "it means you can take it" or "it means you can't take it" you are correct. English for the win, everyone.
2) It's a weak combination that doesn't result in much in the way of power and only breaks immersion if you have problems with sudden body alteration, in which case you should also reject other, similar body-based feats...
3) ... or you've got a very exact and restrictive reading of rules due to personal thresholds of acceptability.
None of that is wrong. Please stop calling each other foolish or morally reprehensible.
If you don't understand how fingernails could be used as an advantage in this way, then you've got some bigger issues you need to work on.
If you don't understand that fingernails don't stand up to this kind of punishment, you've got bigger issues you need to work on.
Please: personal attacks are childish and do nothing for the conversation.
Using a tail to emote is not covered by any rules, there is no bonus to diplomacy or to pass hidden information, it is a cool fluffy bit to RP but not mechanically advantagious.
Besides the point, I was just pointing out that the kobold's tail is not a superficial cosmetic feature. Kobolds use it, so is isn't superficial, nor is it solely a cosmetic feature. It's an actually developed functional organ with some significance.
Humans need their facial muscles to emote, and those don't give bonuses. Kobolds need their tails for the same. Whether or not rules or bonuses apply to an organ is not the deciding factor to determine if an organ is superficial or cosmetic.
If you don't understand that fingernails don't stand up to this kind of punishment, you've got bigger issues you need to work on.
Please: personal attacks are childish and do nothing for the conversation
Like, I hate to pick nits here, but you did the same exact thing that I did before you called me out for that exact behavior, so let's be real here: we're all childish -- I mean, you do realize this is essentially a board game we're talking about, right?
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.
Now, lets take the whole tail terror thing out of the equation.
You player comes up and says, "Hey my character has distant Kitsune Ancestory, can I have a cute little fox tail that doesn't really do anything?"
If you say no, you are disallowing what would be a purely cosmetic hint that doesn't do anything. If a later source book comes out and allows a Kitsune to take a feat to be able to do something mechanically with their tail, do you take that player's tail away?
Sorry, but barring a had rule that says, humans don't have tails, there is no solid RAW to prevent it. Even the oft quoted "A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head." is talking about all humanoids which necessarily includes kobolds and kitsune in all their tail having goodness, and it uses the word "usually" which means the rule is explictly not intended to be an all inclusive list, but rather a description of the things that are common to most humanoids. Sorry, that rule, I do not think is means what you think it means.
Further, if you go into RAI, there is really no good reason to not allow a human to have a tail either. Tails are not limbs that give any mechanical advantage, and if a player wants to burn a feat or two to get an extra attack it is hardly a game breaker. In a game where you are playing a walking statistically anomoly, these kind of limits just don't make sense.
Player: Can I be left handed?
DM: Statistically speaking, Normal Humans are not left handed, so no.
Player: Can I be a born blind in one eye, and wear a cool pirate eye patch?
DM: Statistically speaking, Normal humans have 2 working eyes, so no.
Player: Can I have six fingers on my left hand?
DM: Statistically speaking, normal humans....
Player: *strangles DM, and makes it look like he choked on his Pizza*
Kobolds do use their tail to emote, so it has a function beyond the cosmetic even without an upgrade feat.I'm going to actually ask you to back this up with rules citations. I'm not saying there are none, but for purpose of making this argumentation, please cite the rules so I can look it up. I'm fine if there are some, but I'm curious about it.
I'm on a clumsy mobile device right now, and copy/pasting is very awkward. I can tell you that it's in the PRD as hosted on this site, under the kobold entry of the Advanced Race Guide. I'll whip up a link or quote later if you can't find it.
Not to be weird or anything, but some people (humans) are born with tails. A simple Google image search will confirm this. I only bring this up because I can see an argument being made.
I think I would allow a human who started with a tail (as pointed out above, is possible) to take the Feat. Whether or not that tail comes from a Kobold heritage or not is irrelevant, as such a thing as a human with a tail can exist without such heritage.
If you don't understand that fingernails don't stand up to this kind of punishment, you've got bigger issues you need to work on.
Please: personal attacks are childish and do nothing for the conversation
Like, I hate to pick nits here, but you did the same exact thing that I did before you called me out for that exact behavior, so let's be real here: we're all childish -- I mean, you do realize this is essentially a board game we're talking about, right?
You (purposefully or otherwise) missed the point: I copied your own words back at you as a method of showing the manner in which they conveyed nothing but a lack of insight.
It was, in fact, childish of you to use that phraseology. Please stop.
"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."
I believe that's what you're looking for.
Excellent, thanks! Exactly what I was looking for. Having a toddler that climbs on my face and head (literally) lets me look up some things better than others (generally the things I know where to find). :)
Using a tail to emote is not covered by any rules, there is no bonus to diplomacy or to pass hidden information, it is a cool fluffy bit to RP but not mechanically advantagious.
Besides the point, I was just pointing out that the kobold's tail is not a superficial cosmetic feature. Kobolds use it, so is isn't superficial, nor is it solely a cosmetic feature. It's an actually developed functional organ with some significance.
Humans need their facial muscles to emote, and those don't give bonuses. Kobolds need their tails for the same. Whether or not rules or bonuses apply to an organ is not the deciding factor to determine if an organ is superficial or cosmetic.
On this, I'm curious - would you penalize a player for fluffing their character as playing one of those humans with aberrant or no emote-based facial muscles? Or would that be fluff? Similarly, what of someone with an excessively emotive face? If so, what rules backing would you use?
This is not an argument, but a questioning on whether or not it's valid, in your interpretation, to allow players with or without certain elements that otherwise convey no mechanical benefit or penalty.
Similarly, what of a kobold without a tail? Would you enforce a mechanical penalty for an otherwise arbitrary character choice? Or what if a kobold actually used his face to express emotion, as it doesn't call them out as unable to utilize their face, just that they favor using it (and their faces are devoid as a result of that favoritism). Or, if you take a hardline interpretation "their faces are devoid", how would you apply the idea that they display their emotion via their tails - would that make for any in-game difference, or would people be able to read them normally despite the very different physiological/cultural presentation of emotion?
I can see your point that it's not "vestigial" in that manner... but how does that suss out in game? And what's the difference between your concept and the execution in-game?
Anyway, all that's great and all, but really those questions shouldn't be answered here - they're irrelevant, though if you're interested in continuing the discussion I'd be glad to by PM or in another (non-rules) thread (maybe Pathfinder RPG General Discussion? Actually that might be better, as it's more inclusive), because I'm curious about your responses.
One of the things is that people seem to be talking past each other and talking past the nature of the forum - this is a Rules Forum. That means we discuss the Rules and RAW.
If RAW is ambiguous, we have an obligation to say so. In this case, there is one interpretation that follows most English (that of a tail is required) that is not supported by the rules aside from a minor grammatical construction.
People have been arguing heavily over this ever since.
Most grammatically correct: you need a tail (this feat otherwise does nothing).
Acceptable, but unusual grammar: this lets you make a tail attack, regardless of whether you previously (or currently) have a tail.
Viola. So, can we drop it? Everyone is going around in circles at this point. In fact, I'm just going to hit the "x" on this thread next time I'm able so it stops updating me. Someone please PM me if there's any Errata or FAQ about it. Thanks!
I'm on a clumsy mobile device right now, and copy/pasting is very awkward. I can tell you that it's in the PRD as hosted on this site, under the kobold entry of the Advanced Race Guide. I'll whip up a link or quote later if you can't find it.Kobolds do use their tail to emote, so it has a function beyond the cosmetic even without an upgrade feat.I'm going to actually ask you to back this up with rules citations. I'm not saying there are none, but for purpose of making this argumentation, please cite the rules so I can look it up. I'm fine if there are some, but I'm curious about it."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."
I believe that's what you're looking for.
There is a pretty big difference between "Showing emotions with your tail", as in "X swishes their tail back and forth in an annoyed manner", and doing "emotes", as in full articulate gestures like "X points to the door with their tail".
RAW states that a Human with the feat "Racial Heritage (Kobold)" can, indeed, choose to take the feat "Tail Terror".
However, the taking of the feat is not what grants you the tail. You will have to obtain a tail in some other way, and until you do, the feat is entirely useless.
Your DM can, of course, allow you to have it via the feat, bypassing the RAW in his RAI interpretation. You can grow it via some other magical or monstrous means, exposure to chemicals, etc...
And for those of you that say your character description is all up to the player, keep in mind that the DM is the ultimate judge there. If you say "My elf has blonde hair, blue eyes, and a light covering of fur", it's perfectly within the DM's purview to say "Umm, no you don't".
He can ALLOW you to have it, he can REQUIRE you to justify it, he can pretty much do whatever he wants.
Reference? Rule 0.
If your DM says your human can a cute little Kitsune tail. That's his perogative, and if it ever becomes a mechanical liability then he'll have to deal with it.However, that's the point, the DM ruling has nothing to do with RAW... which is what the issue is.
No, it isn't. If a DM tells a player they cannot be left handed, then the DM needs to give a reason why by RAW it isn't allowed, because in real life, some people are left handed. If you cannot provide RAW to back you up, then you need to admit that you are the one using DM perrogative(AKA Rule Zero) to disallow left handed player characters. You can't just say the RAW doesn't allow left handed characters when it clearly does no such thing.
Some humans have tails, thus without a clear rule saying that humans in pathfinder do not have tails, a human can choose to have a tail.
RAW states that a Human with the feat "Racial Heritage (Kobold)" can, indeed, choose to take the feat "Tail Terror".However, the taking of the feat is not what grants you the tail. You will have to obtain a tail in some other way, and until you do, the feat is entirely useless.
And for those of you that say your character description is all up to the player, keep in mind that the DM is the ultimate judge there. If you say "My elf has blonde hair, blue eyes, and a light covering of fur", it's perfectly within the DM's purview to say "Umm, no you don't".
He can ALLOW you to have it, he can REQUIRE you to justify it, he can pretty much do whatever he wants.
Reference? Rule 0.
In PFS, for example, the allowed limits to rule zero are greatly tightened. This forum is about the what the actual rules of the game are, not what a given DM rule zero's them to be.
Some humans have tails, thus without a clear rule saying that humans in pathfinder do not have tails, a human can choose to have a tail.
There are humans who naturally have tails?
Where? Can you provide Pathfinder and/or IRL references to this? (Besides the vestigal tail which is normally a birth defect, and certainly not long enough or strong enough to qualify for a "tail slap" attack)
In PFS, for example, the allowed limits to rule zero are greatly tightened. This forum is about the what the actual rules of the game are, not what a given DM rule zero's them to be.
Indeed, PFS GM's don't have a "Fiat Rule 0" stamp of denial. Point ceded.
The actual rules of the game don't state that Racial Heritage (Kobold) or Tail Terror feats grow one a tail, either, so what's the problem here?
el cuervo, please stop - you know what you and I did
Yes, I do, and that's why I pointed it out.
Look, if you're going to tell someone to not make personal attacks, you really ought not do it yourself, even if it is just to demonstrate how silly and childish it is. Then again, we're arguing about the rules for a board game, so who is to say what is childish?
If you missed it in my response, there was a , as if to say, y'know, lighten up, I'm joking, etc, etc. Some people take this **** way too seriously.
Some humans have tails, thus without a clear rule saying that humans in pathfinder do not have tails, a human can choose to have a tail.There are humans in Pathfinder who naturally have tails?
Where?
Real life humans form the baseline for what is allowed in humans in PF. There are humans who have short vestigial tails(do a GIS search on "Humans with tails"). Thus, just like being left handed, having a vestigial tail, is part of the default definition of human imported from real life into Pathfinder. Now, you can argue that a vestigial tail is not enough to functionally qualify for the benefits of tail terror, but the rules for tail terror do not specify that you need a functional tail to use tail terror. The rules may imply you need a functional kobold tail, but that is getting into RAI territory.
In PFS, for example, the allowed limits to rule zero are greatly tightened. This forum is about the what the actual rules of the game are, not what a given DM rule zero's them to be.Indeed, PFS GM's don't have a "Fiat Rule 0" stamp of denial. Point ceded.
The actual rules of the game don't state that Racial Heritage (Kobold) or Tail Terror feats grow one a tail, either, so what's the problem here?
Depending on how you interpret things, cosmetic features with no direct mechanical benefits could be considered an "effect related to race", thus Racial Heritage: Kobold could allow you to have a Kobold tail.
Depending on how you interpret things, cosmetic features with no direct mechanical benefits could be considered an "effect related to race", thus Racial Heritage: Kobold could allow you to have a Kobold tail.
Correct. Meaning the assumption that a cosmetic feature, like a tail, POOFING into existence just by taking a feat, is also RAI, and not RAW.
So either way you slice it, there is no RAW supporting the growth of a tail through the taking of the feat.
This isn't a case of "Show me where the book says it doesn't grow me a tail". It's a case of what does the RAW actually say. And to be RAW, it must be WRITTEN. Otherwise it's RAI, and subjective interpretation.
It's a case of "Show me where the book says it DOES grow you a tail". A point of fact which no one has produced thus far.
In the end, it's up to the DM to decide whether it does or does not grow you a tail, since it's not expressly written in the Racial Heritage feat description. He must interpret the "effect related to race" and whether the "so on" in the last line applies to growth of a Kobold-like tail.
Actually, there is. It serves as an extra limb when in other cases the character would not have them. It allows the use of abilities that require such a limb. There is no denying it simply because the player does not take the feats that enable the usage of the tail. It's still there, it still opens doors that would otherwise not be open because of it, and that in itself is a mechanical advantage, just like the addition of a hand or a leg would be.Look, you're hung up on the tail and what it does.
It doesn't do anything.
Kobolds have them, but they might as well not. None of their racial characteristics have anything to do with their tail. Their tail is about as mechanically advantageous as the color of a human's hair.
And yet, you somehow think that it's the tail that is the important factor in terms of mechanics.
Let's take a look at the feat. See the prerequisites? What do they say? Have Tail? No.
They say be a kobold.
A human with racial heritage counts as a kobold.
They might have a tail, they might not, but in either case, their tail/lack of tail would offer that human the exact same non-benefit as a regular kobold gets.
So then, when Tail Terror is taken, that non-benifit becomes a benefit.
Does that means the human suddenly grew a tail? Or already had one? Does it mean Racial Heritage can grant cosmetic appearance changes? Can those changes continue to change throughout the game?
Who cares?
Explain it away in whatever way best suits the game and get on with the fun.
Have you even been reading this thread? It's been stated profusely that having a tail is just as important as having the feat that grants the attack in the first place. Without a Tail, you can't make a Tail Attack. Without an ability granting you a Tail Attack, you can't do such an action with your Tail. Try grabbing a sword with a stump of a hand (or better yet, a pre-clenched fist to best simulate my point) and you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
If you take another player who doesn't have that feat and wants to take it, that tail gives him the mechanical advantage of not being required to use some other method of acquiring a tail (polymorph, shapeshift, etc).
If you're going to say that's not a mechanical advantage, then you must also say that growing a hand or a leg is not a mechanical advantage. Except the rules would disagree with you.
I've already cited previously in this thread that having an extra hand beyond the base 2 gives you access to multi-weapon fighting (and usage of more than just 2 1-handed weapons or 1 2-handed weapon) and having an extra leg gives you +2 to your CMD V.S. Trip Attempts. The mechanical advantage of a tail? Being able to use abilities and effects that would require such a limb. Just like how being able to move your regular speed would require legs (or wings, if flying), or being able to make attacks with standardized manufactured weapons would require functioning hands (and not stumps).
And when we get into hair color, with a feat that requires the specific color of a hair, then that would also be required in order to perform it. Just like how having hair at all (eyebrows included) would be required for use as a weapon with that one supernatural ability Witches get.
Except, the growth of an actual, functional limb is much more difficult and requires a lot more investment than what a simple Prestidigitation effect would solve. This is true in both the game and the modern world. For hair problems, we have hair dye and Rogaine. For limb problems, we have Stem Cells and Prosthetics. Of those two groups, which is the more difficult to obtain and apply properly? That's also proof that it operates on a much more different frequency than what having hair or even hair color problems would amount to, so comparing them to be the same is an incorrect evaluation.
It counts as a Kobold for any effects related to race. Prove that having a tail is an effect related to that race, whether from a Racial Trait, Feat, Magic Items, Spells, ETC. and you will have solved the problem, and the concessions will take place. Until such proof comes forth, (and I doubt it will, since the definition of effect is essentially a reaction from an origin, of which you cannot pin point with game terms or otherwise,) I rest my case, and claim victory this round.
After all, as thaX stated, simply being a race isn't an effect related to that race. Just like how being Human isn't an effect related to Humans.
Depending on how you interpret things, cosmetic features with no direct mechanical benefits could be considered an "effect related to race", thus Racial Heritage: Kobold could allow you to have a Kobold tail.Correct. Meaning the assumption that a cosmetic feature, like a tail, POOFING into existence just by taking a feat, is also RAI, and not RAW.
So either way you slice it, there is no RAW supporting the growth of a tail through the taking of the feat.
This isn't a case of "Show me where the book says it doesn't grow me a tail". It's a case of what does the RAW actually say. And to be RAW, it must be WRITTEN. Otherwise it's RAI, and subjective interpretation.
It's a case of "Show me where the book says it DOES grow you a tail". A point of fact which no one has produced thus far.
In the end, it's up to the DM to decide whether it does or does not grow you a tail, since it's not expressly written in the Racial Heritage feat description. He must interpret the "effect related to race" and whether the "so on" in the last line applies to growth of a Kobold-like tail.
For the record, I have never advocated that the feat automatically grows a tail. If you take the feat at level 1, and claim the tail from birth, I simply cannot find any good reason by RAW to deny a player a tail.
Interpretation is exactly the problem. 2 different groups of people are reading the same rule and getting very different interpretations. Again, it is fine if you are happy with your interpretation, but this is the rules forum.
Having a tail is not an "effect related to race".
Being vulnerable to "Elf-Slaying Arrows" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Elf).
Wielding an "Orc Double Axe" without taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency is an effect related to race if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Orc).
Taking the "Kobold Sorceror Bloodline" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Kobold).
Using the "Stone Lord" archetype is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Dwarf).
A "Standard" Pathfinder Human does not have a tail. Just like your example, a "standard" IRL human does not have a tail. Having one IRL is an extremely rare anomaly. Just like allowing one in PF would be.
There is no RAW that states taking the Tail Terror feat automatically grows a tail, so it becomes RAI on whether to allow it. As far as I know, a DM (even a PFS DM) does not need RAW to deny a character creation request that is an obvious exception to the rule.
Having a tail is not an "effect related to race".
Being vulnerable to "Elf-Slaying Arrows" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Elf).
Wielding an "Orc Double Axe" without taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency is an effect related to race if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Orc).
Taking the "Kobold Sorceror Bloodline" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Kobold).
Using the "Stone Lord" archetype is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Dwarf).
Unless pre-coordinated and approved at Character Creation with your DM, a "standard" Pathfinder human does not have a tail.
Just as a "standard" real-life human does not have a tail without a birth defect.
I agree on all counts except in the case of the Orc Double Axe. Weapon proficiencies are racial traits gained by being a member of that race; they are not effects of race but traits tied directly to the race.
Having a tail is not an "effect related to race".
Being vulnerable to "Elf-Slaying Arrows" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Elf).
Wielding an "Orc Double Axe" without taking Exotic Weapon Proficiency is an effect related to race if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Orc).
Taking the "Kobold Sorceror Bloodline" is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Kobold).
Using the "Stone Lord" archetype is an effect related to race, if a Human were to have Racial Heritage (Dwarf).
Unless pre-coordinated and approved at Character Creation with your DM, a "standard" Pathfinder human does not have a tail.
Just as a "standard" real-life human does not have a tail without a birth defect.
Where exactly do you find the rule that say "You must be a normal human with no statistical deviation from the accept normal for humans."?
A standard human is not left handed. A standard human does not have 6 fingers on their left hand. A standard human doesn't have red hair. A standard human doesn't grow up to be a hero. It has been show several times why the Standard Human test is not only unsupported by RAW, but is also a silly straight-jacket on character creation.
Second, that is your interpretation of "effect related to race", suffice to say, not everyone agrees with that interpretation, or this would have been a much shorter thread.
I agree on all counts except in the case of the Orc Double Axe. Weapon proficiencies are racial traits gained by being a member of that race; they are not effects of race but traits tied directly to the race.
Agreed, but remember that Racial Heritage (Orc) also allows you to qualify for those, since for all intents and purposes, you ARE a member of that race.
I agree on all counts except in the case of the Orc Double Axe. Weapon proficiencies are racial traits gained by being a member of that race; they are not effects of race but traits tied directly to the race.Agreed, but remember that Racial Heritage (Orc) also allows you to qualify for those, since for all intents and purposes, you ARE a member of that race.
What you're saying is that, by taking the Racial Heritage (Orc) feat, you gain all the racial traits of Orc in addition to the racial traits of Humans. No. You don't get Orc Weapon Familiarity through the Racial Heritage (Orc) feat any more than you get darkvision through the same feat. Weapon proficiency is not an "effect of race."
There is a pretty big difference between "Showing emotions with your tail", as in "X swishes their tail back and forth in an annoyed manner", and doing "emotes", as in full articulate gestures like "X points to the door with their tail".
The main difference is that your "X points to the door with their tail" isn't emoting. That meaning of "emote" only applies to chat-based environments.
I meant "emote" in the traditional sense of the word, being "to convey emotion".
I might be wrong, but I think you misunderstood what I was saying.
No, it isn't. If a DM tells a player they cannot be left handed, then the DM needs to give a reason why by RAW it isn't allowed, because in real life, some people are left handed. If you cannot provide RAW to back you up, then you need to admit that you are the one using DM perrogative(AKA Rule Zero) to disallow left handed player characters. You can't just say the RAW doesn't allow left handed characters when it clearly does no such thingWe're more or less on the same side here.
However, the DM doesn't HAVE to do anything, he doesn't HAVE to provide RAW for anything. The DM can say humans have tails and are all right handed. That's Rule 0, DM Perogative, not RAW.
The issue we're talking about is whether RAW, Racial Heritage/Tail Terror let's you GROW a tail that you didn't previously have.
That is exactly my point. If you are resorting to rule zero, then you are making a decision to change the rules. Thus the only reason to use rule zero is if you don't like RAW and want to change them. If RAW already agrees with you, then you don't need to use rule zero. This forum is about what RAW actually is, not what you can rule zero it into.
Where exactly do you find the rule that say "You must be a normal human with no statistical deviation from the accept normal for humans."?
A standard human is not left handed. A standard human does not have 6 fingers on their left hand. A standard human doesn't have red hair. A standard human doesn't grow up to be a hero. It has been show several times why the Standard Human test is not only unsupported by RAW, but is also a silly straight-jacket on character creation.
Second, that is your interpretation of "effect related to race", suffice to say, not everyone agrees with that interpretation, or this would have been a much shorter thread.
It's in the same non-existent paragraph that contains the rule that says a player must be granted a tail if he wishes to have one.
A "standard human", as you suggest, has a range of traits. NONE of them include a tail long enough or strong enough to qualify for a tail attack. Nor does any medical science report contain such.
You're trying to exploit a technicality to a common sense argument.
The RAW that must be proven is that the feat "Racial Heritage (Kobold)" gives you access to a tail. Since you're such a proponent of RAW instead of RAI, I ask you to tell me the RAW that allows it.
There is NO WRITTEN RULE that says this feat grants you a tail. In order to say it does, you must INTERPRET the rules, meaning you are also delving into RAI. A no-no in your logic train.
So, pure RAW, unless the feat has the text "grants you a tail" or "grants you the requisite body part to qualify for the feat" or some other such writing, it doesn't exist and it still remains firmly planted in the DM's hands for consideration and interpretation.
There is a pretty big difference between "Showing emotions with your tail", as in "X swishes their tail back and forth in an annoyed manner", and doing "emotes", as in full articulate gestures like "X points to the door with their tail".The main difference is that your "X points to the door with their tail" isn't emoting. That meaning of "emote" only applies to chat-based environments.
I meant "emote" in the traditional sense of the word, being "to convey emotion".
I figured, I just wanted to clarify, because in the less traditional sense, emote implies you can do a lot more than just express emotional states.
If you are resorting to rule zero, then you are making a decision to change the rules. Thus the only reason to use rule zero is if you don't like RAW and want to change them. If RAW already agrees with you, then you don't need to use rule zero. This forum is about what RAW actually is, not what you can rule zero it into.
Keep in mind that you must also invoke rule Zero to clarify rules that are ambiguous, such as the definition of "effect related to race".
Because that's a DM's job.
Otherwise the player can claim pretty much anything he wants, as long as the DM can't prove it otherwise in RAW.
I'm afraid the rules are written the other way around, my friend. It will never change the fact that the DM is the final interpretation authority for rules that may need clarified.
I'm sorry, I'm replying to things out of order. It seems I'm having trouble keeping up.
Now, lets take the whole tail terror thing out of the equation.
You player comes up and says, "Hey my character has distant Kitsune Ancestory, can I have a cute little fox tail that doesn't really do anything?"
If you say no, you are disallowing what would be a purely cosmetic hint that doesn't do anything. If a later source book comes out and allows a Kitsune to take a feat to be able to do something mechanically with their tail, do you take that player's tail away?
If I were to allow it (after thoroughly teasing the player for thinking extra appendages, be they hairy or scaly, could ever be considered cute :P), I'd remind the player that the little tail was supposed to not "really do anything". That, for me, also includes qualifying as a prerequisite for anything or being the base to build other abilities upon. If it can do either, it's not really not doing anything.