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


Rules Questions

701 to 750 of 1,170 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | next > last >>

Charender wrote:
Forseti wrote:
Charender wrote:
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.

I'm sorry. This post will be completely irrelevant to the conversation and I'm apologising in advance. I'm kind of obsessive about trivial crap, so I just wanted to let you both know that the word "emote" is actually a 20th century word invented by thespians who "emote" on stage. It literally means to portray emotion dramatically.

It doesn't have any root except that it is a back-formation of emotion. Carry on! :D


Barry Armstrong wrote:


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.

Original Objection:

Tail Terror requires a tail. Nothing in Racial Heritage or Tail terror allows you to grow a tail thus Tail Terror will not work for a human with RH: Kobold.

Response:
That interpretation of Tail Terror relies on something that might be considered fluff text, but assuming that Tail Terror requires a tail.
A. RH: Kobold could allow you to have a tail as an effect related to race.
B. Humans can have a tail normally, and nothing in RAW says you cannot.

Counter response to A:
I disagree with your interpretation of "effects related to race".
Problem: we are at an impasse because the correct interpretation is a matter of RAI.

Counter response to B:
That isn't a functional tail.
Problem: Nothing in Tail Terror requires you to have a "functional tail". RAI may require it, but RAW does not.

So purely by RAW we are at an impasse. Which brings us too....

Quote:

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.

Since we are now talking about common sense interpretations and RAI....

Common sense says that using fluff descriptions of things as hard RAW rules is a dangerous path to go down. (Do all longsword have to look like the picture in the CRB?)
Common sense says that someone with "Racial Heritage: Kobold" could be born with a fully functional Kobold tail.
Common sense says that a human taking 2 feats to gain a weak tail attack is not game breaking.
Common sense says that requiring players to play statistically normal members of their race is silly.

Thus, if you want to talk common sense and RAI, then the case is even more firmly in favor of allowing this combination to work.

Shadow Lodge

RJGrady wrote:

I can't think of anyone who has claimed Racial Heritage can grant you a feature in that way. A tail is not a feature (at least, kobolds don't have it as one). I don't think Sleep Venom works because it doesn't grant a mechanically complete ability.

The exemplars I think need to be looked at individually and collectively are:
Agile Tongue (even humans have a tongue)
Tail Terror (neither kobolds nor humans have a tail slap, but kobolds are described as normally having tails)
Sharp Claws (seems to unambiguously grant claws, despite some descriptive text)

My argument is that these all work, because you qualify for them, and adding the feature, trait, or attack listed doesn't result in any rules funkiness whatsoever.

if I remember right tails grant a +2 to acrobatic checks made to balance, but that might have been a 3.5 thing


This really boils down to a simple argument:

1) Is there a written rule (RAW) that specifically cites tail growth as a part of RH (K) or Tail Terror?

Answer: No

2) Is there a written rule (RAW) that specifically prohibits tail growth as a part of RH (K) or Tail Terror?

Answer: No

If the answer is NO to both questions, then RAW is not a factor. Somewhere, a rule must either be created or interpreted since the question is posed.

3) Is there ambiguous text that MIGHT allow tail growth as a part of RH (K) or Tail Terror?

Answer: Yes

4) Is there lack of ruling on the issue that requires rule creation?

Answer: No

If the answer is YES to 3, disregard 4. If the answer is NO to 3, proceed to 4 and create homebrew rule if 4 is YES. Answering YES to 3 requires interpretation of an existing rule. RAI is now a factor.

5) Who has ultimate RAI authority within a game?

Answer: The DM

Reference: CRB, Chapter 1, Page 9

"Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt."

Dark Archive

Charender wrote:


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.

The rules may also imply you need a functional heart to live, but nowhere is this specifically stated, nor is it stated that you need functional limbs to move or attack, it is simply required that you possess arms and legs. And lo, the notquiteundeadbutsortofdead shall walk and munch on brains. Or perhaps more 'realistically' there are humans, in real life who fall from thousands of feet and survive, does this mean that since it is an actual event that happens to baseline humans human characters cannot be killed be fall damage? Normal humans, what we might call 'commoners', survive lightning bolts in real life, can we assume that also cannot kill human characters, after all real life human events and humans form the baseline!

Resorting to 'baseline' human comparisons as 100% true game fact in relation to a fantasy game which laughs at the laws of physics is foolish, trying to argue that your interpretation of the rules must be true based on such is beyond that.

As you state, we should not interpret RAI but stick to RAW, Racial Heritage & Tail Terror allow you to make a tail attack with your tail, please point out where in the RAW it specifically states 'if you lack a tail, you grow one', other such feats (regardless of whether we feel they are ridiculous or not) specifically have this language, Tail Terror does not.

A hypothetical person can happily watch hundreds of hours of martial arts and combat moves and then be told to punch someone as hard as they can, but if this person, despite all their knowledge on *how* to punch someone, for some terrible reason lacks hands it will not happen. Lacking the relevant wording we can only read it that if you do not possess a tail, you cannot make use of this ephemeral tail attack until you shapechange or use some other method to gain a tail with which to apply the feat to.


Indeed. Just because a human HAS had a vestigal tail (keep in mind that it's VERY rare, and almost always removed as a birth defect), does not mean that you can automatically claim that your particular Pathfinder Human has a tail. Nor does that mean that the DM must allow it unless he provides you RAW reference to the contrary.

Nor does it mean that tail is of sufficient size and strength to make a tail attack. The closest thing to a human with a tail in Pathfinder is probably a Tiefling, and, guess what? They don't have tail attacks.

Personally, if you took the feats as your level 1 Human feats, I'd allow it as your DM. But without a sufficient backstory or justification, I'd also allow your starting town to kick you out as a "demonic oddity". You have no starting gold or equipment but the clothes on your back. It was confiscated by the town as a mercy tax so your parents wouldn't go to jail. Those merchants that DO choose to sell to you might mark up their goods 10% or more. Certain Clerics and Paladins may refuse to offer you sanctuary or healing services. So on and so forth...


Charender wrote:
Barry Armstrong wrote:

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.

Don't get started on the morals issue; impressions of people and their regards to those having abnormal or lacking/excess of limbs is irrelevant to the rules discussion. We already had a really major derail from that, we don't need another one. Stick to the topic or make a thread that's relevant to what you really want to discuss, which appears to be anti-"abnormal" human "protests" and how much of stinky poopy heads they are.

The template we are using for the "standard human" which you so seemingly claim isn't true, by RAW, refers to the Humanoid (sub)type, which makes no mention of having extra or lack of fingers, toes, etc. If you want to discuss real life humans who have such things, then yes, obviously they exist, they too are human, and they aren't any different from what others would call the average joe.

But the discussion is about what is permissible by the rules, not about whether we hate people who have "deformities".

Back on topic...

Nobody has yet to provide the proof needed to show that limbs are an effect of a race. I implore those of you who argue Racial Heritage = Free Tail, to either back up your claim or back down from it. While I enjoy a good debate, there comes a fine line between resources well spent and resources being wasted. At this point it is at the very least scaling down to the latter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


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.

The rules may also imply you need a functional heart to live, but nowhere is this specifically stated, nor is it stated that you need functional limbs to move or attack, it is simply required that you possess arms and legs. And lo, the notquiteundeadbutsortofdead shall walk and munch on brains. Or perhaps more 'realistically' there are humans, in real life who fall from thousands of feet and survive, does this mean that since it is an actual event that happens to baseline humans human characters cannot be killed be fall damage? Normal humans, what we might call 'commoners', survive lightning bolts in real life, can we assume that also cannot kill human characters, after all real life human events and humans form the baseline!

Resorting to 'baseline' human comparisons as 100% true game fact in relation to a fantasy game which laughs at the laws of physics is foolish, trying to argue that your interpretation of the rules must be true based on such is beyond that.

Funny, earlier in the thread when people were claiming that you can't have a tail because, "Racial Heritage: Kobold does not give you a tail, and humans don't have tails". It seems awfully important.

The point is that RAW is very silent on exactly how much leeway a player has over character appearance. The rules literally say, "Choose your appearance" with very few limitations.

Quote:

As you state, we should not interpret RAI but stick to RAW, Racial Heritage & Tail Terror allow you to make a tail attack with your tail, please point out where in the RAW it specifically states 'if you lack a tail, you grow one', other such feats (regardless of whether we feel they are ridiculous or not) specifically have this language, Tail Terror does not.

Nice strawman there. What I am doing is being very careful to separate RAW from my personal opinion of RAI. We must be very careful to separate what the rules actually say(RAW) from our interpretations of those rules.

Quote:

A hypothetical person can happily watch hundreds of hours of martial arts and combat moves and then be told to punch someone as hard as they can, but if this person, despite all their knowledge on *how* to punch someone, for some terrible reason lacks hands it will not happen. Lacking the relevant wording we can only read it that if you do not possess a tail, you cannot make use of this ephemeral tail attack until you shapechange or use some other method to gain a tail with which to apply the feat to.

Again, that is your opinion of RAI. RAW is very simple.

1. Players are given lots of leeway in the rules to choose their appearance.
2. Kobold tail is in the description of a kobold's appearance, so it is definately an element of appearance.
2. If Kobold, take this feat, and get tail attack.
3. If you have racial heritage, you count as that race for all effects related to race.
4. Tail terror implies a tail is needed for the attack. It does not specifically say you gain a tail or that you need one.

RAI(Rules as Intended)
1. What are the reasonable limits on the appearance of a human? This is where the idea of human norms comes from.
2. Is appearance an effect related to race? To say no defies common sense and flies in the face of everything we know about genetics.
3. Can your appearance provide indirect mechanical benefits in the form of allowing you to use feats later? The red-scaled kobold traits seem to imply that the color of your scales(an appearance decision) can be used to control access to mechanical benefits, so yes.

The problem is that once you cross the divide from RAW into RAI, we can also ask questions like.
1. Is this combination overpowering? No, not really.
2. Does it promote diversity and fun for the players? Yes, generally more options is better than fewer.

Ultimately, only the developers can tells us what the correct intended interpretation of the rules are.


I think it's quite clear that basic anatomy is not an "effect" of race for purposes of the Racial Heritage feat. Why not, you ask?

Because it can't be. It would lead to paradoxical situations stemming from the fact that "you count as both human and that race for any effects related to race". You would need to have all anatomical features from both races, and some features just don't go together. Like a human with merfolk heritage. He would have legs because he counts as a human, and he would have a fish tail instead of legs because he counts as a merfolk. Does not compute!

Now, some people here argue that Racial Heritage will let you pick features as you see fit. I'll just reiterate what the feat says.

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

You'll notice that it doesn't say:

"you count as both human and that race for some effects related to race decided by the player's whim."

Furthermore, I challenge the notion of "anatomy as an effect of race" on linguistic grounds. Anatomy being an effect of race would be like saying that having a roof is an effect of being a house, roundness is an effect of being a circle, conductivity is an effect of being metal, etc. Neither of those are "effects", they're characteristics.

(I realize I posted some of these thoughts before in some form. So sue me. :P)

Dark Archive

Charender wrote:


Nice strawman there. What I am doing is being very careful to separate RAW from my personal opinion of RAI. We must be very careful to separate what the rules actually say(RAW) from our interpretations of those rules.

Except it's not.

Here are rule texts from various feats that grant the use of extra attacks and/or limbs.

Paizo wrote:


Aspect of the Beast - You grow a pair of claws

Draconic Glide - You grow a pair of wings

Angel Wings - You gain a pair of gleaming feathered wings

Agile Tongue - You have a prehensile tongue

Sharpclaw - You gain two claw attacks

The language is quite clear, 'you gain', 'you have' or 'you grow', these clearly indicate you possess the related body part, 'you can' indicates no such possession. Nowhere in Tail Terror is such language present, RAW you do not grow or gain a tail, one must already be present.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Barry Armstrong wrote:
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.

You are incorrect

I have included the rules (trait and feat below) RAW;

So going strictly by RAW taking the Racial Heritage trait (Kobold) means the PC 'counts' as Kobold for the purpose of taking the traits of your ancestor (now an ancestor can be your Dad/Mum or your Great, Great, Great Grand-pappy).

The issue being discussed on the thread is that some people disagree with this RAW... and that's fine... But that doesn't make them correct.

I am not saying you have to have to 'allow' anything in your own personal home-game. but the RAW is explicit in allowing this.

Racial Heritage:
Racial Heritage
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows 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.

Tail Terror (Combat):
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.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I posted this in the other thread, it seems to be needed to be pasted here...

- - - paste - - -

The intent of the devs...

They made a feat that was for a race that has a tail.

They never intended for another race that does not have a tail to take that feat. It is clear that a tail is expected of the race that takes this feat.

Just because another race can get a foothold into other racial feats, that doesn't mean every single one of them would be useful for him.

Tail Terror allows the character to make a tail slap. With a tail. If you happen to not have a tail, you will have to find another way to get one or wait on evolution.

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

I know, that is to simple for some, they want complications of some sort, go into the reasoning behind the tale, the great story of exactly what went into the Racial Heritage and say "maybe" this was intended to be used to sprout other races tails.

I don't.

No tail. No tail slap. I would suggest maybe taking another feat, or finding a way to get a tail.

- - - end of paste - - -

I still don't see why this is even a question.

Concerning Kitsune tails. If one would want to get Racial Heritage (Kitsune) and the Kitsune Feat "Magical Tail" then I would guess you would grow a tail. That it is meant to be an extra one to one already existing may be a sticking point, but we already have a thread with over 700 posts about such nit picking.

The thing is, the character taking Magical Tail still would not get the extra innate spell like ability, since you need to already have such to add to it.

Even the Kitsune race itself wouldn't get the abilities if they had taken Fast Shifter that replaces their innate gift to cast Dancing Light 3 times a day.

A tail is not a part of the descriptive qualities of a human that can be used to put flavor on the character. Blue eyes, red hair, a scar that runs down the face and through the ear, a big, bulbous nose, freckles, skinny, fat, tall for a human, hunched over all the time, a permanent snear across the feature of the face, big boobs, huge hands, junk in the trunk, cottage cheese thighs, talks in an Australasian accent, red skin with polka dotted tattoos, green teeth, little toes, small feet, knock knees, and etc, etc, etc... those are fine to describe a character.

Having a tail, extra arm/leg, wings, third eye, or whatever other physical things you want to add are beyond the scope of "effects" and describing one's character.

I know of a few who play dwarven character taking great care to describe their beards, paying at least 5 gold at character creation for the various babbles and beard care products needed to produce such a fine (for a dwarf) beard. One was a female character.

Really, the circle this and the other thread goes through simply ignores the intent of the original feat that started this discussion.

Tail Terror is meant to be taken by a Kobold. The fact that the one taking the feat would have a tail would not be in question when taken by the race that the feat is intended to be used by.

Edit -- Clarified a sentence.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thaX wrote:

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

We aren't talking about Humans...

We are talking about a Human + (Racial Heritage, Kobold)

The difference is the 'Kobold' ancestor and how much Kobold the 'Human' might have inherited...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
lastblacknight wrote:
Barry Armstrong wrote:
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.

You are incorrect

I have included the rules (trait and feat below) RAW;

So going strictly by RAW taking the Racial Heritage trait (Kobold) means the PC 'counts' as Kobold for the purpose of taking the traits of your ancestor (now an ancestor can be your Dad/Mum or your Great, Great, Great Grand-pappy).

The issue being discussed on the thread is that some people disagree with this RAW... and that's fine... But that doesn't make them correct.

I am not saying you have to have to 'allow' anything in your own personal home-game. but the RAW is explicit in allowing this.

** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **

Thank you for posting these yet again, as I have done previously and others have done before me.

The issue, though, is that neither of these feats, Racial Heritage or Tail Terror (Combat), actually read to say that a human taking this feat combo would grow the character a tail.

A Human and his half cousins can certainly take the feats, it is whether or not he can make use of the one (Tail Terror) that is being discussed.

I still maintain that "Twerking" is not enough. I still maintain that this particular combo does not, in fact, grow one a tail.

I still say that if a tail was acquired, the damage would go up a step to represent a medium creature doing damage. (1d6 damage instead of 1d4)

Counting as a kobold is not the same as being a kobold. Getting tail could mean a great many things, but actually gaining one under the rules would need more than a feat that allows you to use one to attack with.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
lastblacknight wrote:
thaX wrote:

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

We aren't talking about Humans...

We are talking about a Human + (Racial Heritage, Kobold)

The difference is the 'Kobold' ancestor and how much Kobold the 'Human' might have inherited...

Yes, we are talking about humans.

You count as a kobold to allow you to take the feat, not to grow tails. As someone else pointed out, you are a human first, not a Half-Kobold.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You're welcome - I have also posted these previously but I will include the exerts below.

from Racial Heritage...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,...'

from Tail Terror...Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1,kobold.

RAW it is explicit taking the trait enables you to take the racial feat. End of Discussion. You may not like it but taking one, then the next is allowed for in the rules.

The only thing being discussed now is what physical aspects your PC's parents might pass on to their children or grand-children.

Dark Archive

lastblacknight wrote:


RAW it is explicit taking the trait enables you to take the racial feat. End of Discussion. You may not like it but taking one, then the next is allowed for in the rules.

I don't think a single person has argued that you can't take the feats, of course that's perfectly valid, the position of those against it working is that once you take it you still have no tail as the feat provides none, thus it is useless, exactly the same as if a non spellcaster had taken a metamagic feat, nothing stops them from spending a feat on that, however they can't use the feat in any way since they lack the ability to cast spells to which the feat refers.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thaX wrote:
lastblacknight wrote:
thaX wrote:

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

We aren't talking about Humans...

We are talking about a Human + (Racial Heritage, Kobold)

The difference is the 'Kobold' ancestor and how much Kobold the 'Human' might have inherited...

Yes, we are talking about humans.

You count as a kobold to allow you to take the feat, not to grow tails. As someone else pointed out, you are a human first, not a Half-Kobold.

Quoting 'someone' else who is also wrong doesn't make you correct.

A PC with the Racial Heritage trait is not a pure-blood human. They are now a Human + the Racial Heritage of their ancestor (that is the point of taking this trait - it allows you to benefit from you parents ancestry... even if they are Kobold).

The difference is the 'Kobold' ancestor and how much Kobold the 'Human' might have inherited...


thaX wrote:

I posted this in the other thread, it seems to be needed to be pasted here...

- - - paste - - -

The intent of the devs...

They made a feat that was for a race that has a tail.

They never intended for another race that does not have a tail to take that feat. It is clear that a tail is expected of the race that takes this feat.

Just because another race can get a foothold into other racial feats, that doesn't mean every single one of them would be useful for him.

Tail Terror allows the character to make a tail slap. With a tail. If you happen to not have a tail, you will have to find another way to get one or wait on evolution.

The feat in question was intended for a Kobold. Who has a tail.

Not for a human/half-elf/half-orc. Who do not have a tail.

I know, that is to simple for some, they want complications of some sort, go into the reasoning behind the tale, the great story of exactly what went into the Racial Heritage and say "maybe" this was intended to be used to sprout other races tails.

I don't.

No tail. No tail slap. I would suggest maybe taking another feat, or finding a way to get a tail.

- - - end of paste - - -

I still don't see why this is even a question.

Concerning Kitsune tails. If one would want to get Racial Heritage (Kitsune) and the Kitsune Feat "Magical Tail" then I would guess you would grow a tail. That it is meant to be an extra one to one already existing may be a sticking point, but we already have a thread with over 700 posts about such nit picking.

The thing is, the character taking Magical Tail still would not get the extra innate spell like ability, since you need to already have such to add to it.

Even the Kitsune race itself wouldn't get the abilities if they had taken Fast Shifter that replaces their innate gift to cast Dancing Light 3 times a day.

A tail is not a part of the descriptive qualities of a human that can be used to put flavor on the character. Blue eyes, red hair, a scar that runs down the face and through the...

I wouldn't say you are looking at the right feat. I agree with dev intent on tail terror, the intent for all racial feats was to give a cool, unique option for playing that race. Then the dev team made racial heritage to let humans and partial humans get in on that action. Now we are all interpreting "effects of race" for a feat that was clearly meant to allow the use of racial feats but just as clearly not to allow access to all of them and just where that boundary is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have never seen so many badwrongfun police in one thread before, ever…

What really makes me laugh about the whole conversation is that the issue was effectively already solved for the OP back on page 10.

This post brings up an Aasamar with Scion of Humanity using Racial Heritage Kobold to pick up Tail Terror.

Apparently no one wanted to even try to argue about whether or not an Aasamar can have a tail.

Five pages later the argument is still going because some people don't like the idea. Not because the rules don't support it.


Doomed Hero wrote:

I have never seen so many badwrongfun police in one thread before, ever…

What really makes me laugh about the whole conversation is that the issue was effectively already solved for the OP back on page 10.

This post brings up an Aasamar with Scion of Humanity using Racial Heritage Kobold to pick up Tail Terror.

Apparently no one wanted to even try to argue about whether or not an Aasamar can have a tail.

Five pages later the argument is still going because some people don't like the idea. Not because the rules don't support it.

Textbook strawmanning. Presenting the opposition's entire argument as "they don't like it", and claiming that is invalid.

The opposition's argument is that humans or other races who qualify for Tail Terror by means of Racial Heritage, can take the feat but cannot make use of it without some other source of a tail, since humans do not possess one and Racial Heritage nor Tail Terror grant one. If the character acquires a tail from some other source, they could make use of their Tail Terror feat.


So, you don't think Aasamar can have tails?

Based on what?


PFSRD wrote:


"Not all aasimar are descended from humans. Aasimars can be born of any intelligent race, though human aasimars are the most common. Aasimars of other races usually exemplify the ideals of beauty and skill as seen by their base race. For example, halfling aasimars are small, beautifully proportioned, and display exceptional grace. Half-orc aasimars are slightly larger and stronger than ordinary orcs, with tough skin and metallic claws and tusks—they are likely to be neutral rather than evil, but still display aggression and incredible combat prowess. Less common humanoids, such as lizardfolk, catfolk, tengus, and others, can also produce aasimars, though given these races’ exotic appearance, members of the more common races may have trouble telling such aasimars apart from their kin."

But no tails allowed.

Dark Archive

Doomed Hero wrote:

I have never seen so many badwrongfun police in one thread before, ever…

What really makes me laugh about the whole conversation is that the issue was effectively already solved for the OP back on page 10.

This post brings up an Aasamar with Scion of Humanity using Racial Heritage Kobold to pick up Tail Terror.

Apparently no one wanted to even try to argue about whether or not an Aasamar can have a tail.

Five pages later the argument is still going because some people don't like the idea. Not because the rules don't support it.

Absolute strawman as noted, nothing at all to do with 'dislike', in my own games I will happily allow it, but please, try and understand what the name of this forum means, many people play in PFS where the rules as written are all that matters, not as intended or as we might prefer. Many of us have already said that if your race has a tail (tieflings, etc) then it almost certainly meets the requirements, the question specifically remaining here though has been a human taking the feat, please try to stay on topic with that.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
I wouldn't say you are looking at the right feat. I agree with dev intent on tail terror, the intent for all racial feats was to give a cool, unique option for playing that race. Then the dev team made racial heritage to let humans and partial humans get in on that action. Now we are all interpreting "effects of race" for a feat that was clearly meant to allow the use of racial feats but just as clearly not to allow access to all of them and just where that boundary is.

So...The difference is the 'Kobold' ancestor and how much Kobold the 'Human' might have inherited...

RAW is absolute
RAI is open to interpretation and opinion

So with RAW put to bed you'd like to argue RAI and what you imagine dev's intent is/was/might/could be?

This is the crux of the issue.

We all play the game differently, not all rules need to be iron-clad - in fact it's better for some to be loose to allow leeway.

RAW allows for races to inherit abilities and features of their parents, but you'd like a limit on 'how much' change? For what reason? Does this impact on your game or play-style?


thaX wrote:


I still don't see why this is even a question.

I've explained this problemto you several times... There are a group of us who question your strange psychic link with the Dev team and would like to see what they them selves rather then accept your Mouth of Sauronesque proclamations.


lastblacknight wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
I wouldn't say you are looking at the right feat. I agree with dev intent on tail terror, the intent for all racial feats was to give a cool, unique option for playing that race. Then the dev team made racial heritage to let humans and partial humans get in on that action. Now we are all interpreting "effects of race" for a feat that was clearly meant to allow the use of racial feats but just as clearly not to allow access to all of them and just where that boundary is.

So...The difference is the 'Kobold' ancestor and how much Kobold the 'Human' might have inherited...

RAW is absolute
RAI is open to interpretation and opinion

So with RAW put to bed you'd like to argue RAI and what you imagine dev's intent is/was/might/could be?

This is the crux of the issue.

We all play the game differently, not all rules need to be iron-clad - in fact it's better for some to be loose to allow leeway.

RAW allows for races to inherit abilities and features of their parents, but you'd like a limit on 'how much' change? For what reason? Does this impact on your game or play-style?

How much heritage you have is entirely undefined and I feel it is purposely so, that is a RP matter for the player and GM to decide.

Effects of race is also entirely undefined but this was probably not the intent. However, without a definition of effects of race there is no RAW to fall back on. It wasn't written. We have a few examples sure and we are confident that racial traits are not included but where do the rules spell out the list of effects? This is really the question being asked. No one is arguing about this list because no one has a comprehensive list backed up by printed rules.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
How much heritage you have is entirely undefined and I feel it is purposely so, that is a RP matter for the player and GM to decide.

Except for the bit in the trait that say's ...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...

I mean, that bit of the RAW is explicit. If this trait enables you then your hybrid Human (Racial Heritage: Kobold) PC to access feats which allows it's tail to be used as a weapon, then mechanically that's what happens. I am not suggesting it's something I would take or that it's desirable).

What isn't explicit is what physical aspects are passed from an ancestor to it's descendants. A human might have the feathers, teeth, skin or feet which may then open up other choices for that PC.

I haven't explored all the variations of these choices or even the impact to PFSOP but all this does is open up different ways to play and enjoy our game.


lastblacknight wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
How much heritage you have is entirely undefined and I feel it is purposely so, that is a RP matter for the player and GM to decide.

Except for the bit in the trait that say's ...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...

I mean, that bit of the RAW is explicit. If this trait enables you then your hybrid Human (Racial Heritage: Kobold) PC to access feats which allows it's tail to be used as a weapon, then mechanically that's what happens. I am not suggesting it's something I would take or that it's desirable).

What isn't explicit is what physical aspects are passed from an ancestor to it's descendants. A human might have the feathers, teeth, skin or feet which may then open up other choices for that PC.

I haven't explored all the variations of these choices or even the impact to PFSOP but all this does is open up different ways to play and enjoy our game.

Well,ok, yes, the percentage is enough to have the impact to be a feat but less than full. I would wager it is supposed to be less than half but even that is not clearly stated.


So let me get this straight-

Human that counts as a Kobold: can't benefit from Tail Terror.

Aasamar, who counts as a Human that counts as a Kobold: can benefit from Tail Terror.

Riiiight.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Gentlemen.

  • One. I have never said, nor implied, that the feat Tail Terror could not be taken by a human with Racial Heritage.
  • Two. Rules As Written (RAW) vs. Rules As Intended (RAI) are not end sum of a game between integers.
  • Three. The original question never had anything to do with the phases of a human of Kobold dissent, dissecting those phases into tailless and tailed entities.
  • four. "effects" for those of you new to the thread, this term came about because of what some are trying to inject into the Racial Heritage feat combined with the description of the human race in the Core Rule Book (CRB). A somewhat confusing attempt to list a tail as a descriptive attribute like having blue eyes or blonde hair. Something at the heart of most of those that want tails/poison/wings/tentacles/medusa stare/etc for free.
  • five. Racial Heritage gives you the ability to take feats and traits of the race chosen at the time it is taken. This has never been in dispute.
  • six. What is in dispute is if those feats are always useful for the human (and half-breeds) to take. This is where the title of the thread comes in. The Poison example is from a racial feat for the Vishkanyas race called Sleep Venom. This changes the poison the race uses into a sleep poison instead of Dex damage. Humans do not have this poison to change, thus they can not make use of this feat, though they can still take the feat anyways.
  • Seven. RAW. As in Six, since humans do not have tails, they can not use Tail Terror, but can still take the feat regardless.
  • Eight. The abilities and features of their parents indeed. It never implies this anywhere that has been mentioned in these 750 posts.
    Advanced Players Guide wrote:
    "Racial Heritage" The blood of a non-human ancestor flows 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.
    Taking both sentences into account, this simply means you detect at a human and the other race when it comes to things applying to the character. That is all. You can take feats and traits, be hated by another race (Not gaining the hatred of the chosen race, but that race being hated by others), and "so on." Stuff that "effects" that race. It does not, anywhere, say to give any descriptive attributes to the human, but rather explains what it means by "Effects."
  • Nine. I don't need to be a developer or work for Paizo to see a simple feat and how it works then figure out how it would be changed when an unexpected way to access it changes the intent of the feat. Namely, a different race takes a racial feat that uses a feature the host race does not have. (like poison coursing through their veins)
  • Ten. Humans still do not have tails. It isn't that the rules omit this, it is that they do not say they have tails nor that they gain one when convenient. Tail Terror or Racial Heritage in no way changes this.

To be quite frank, most GM would not allow a tail in this manner without some very good explanation or a very lenient ruling to passify the player. I, early on, had even suggested a mechanical tail be built for the character in a home game that would be a part of the character's armor. I may make an item for next year's Superstar contest.

As far as the FAQ goes, I can guess at what is proffered. Hands equal claws, no on the poison, extra appendages need provided for, either by wording in the feat (which tail terror does not have) or other means. Tongue for tongue, mouth to bite, etc etc etc...

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:

So let me get this straight-

Human that counts as a Kobold: can't benefit from Tail Terror.

Aasamar, who counts as a Human that counts as a Kobold: can benefit from Tail Terror.

Riiiight.

Looking over the Assimar entry, where exactly does it say they have a tail?

I do see the Scion of Humanity. It is a racial trait that is much like Racial heritage for the Aasimar, but a chosen subtype already done for them. (Human) Hence, we should include Aasimar in the list along with Half-Elf and Half-Orc that can take the Racial Heritage feat. That doesn't really change the underlining issued. None of these have tails.


thaX wrote:

Gentlemen.

  • One. I have never said, nor implied, that the feat Tail Terror could not be taken by a human with Racial Heritage.
  • Two. Rules As Written (RAW) vs. Rules As Intended (RAI) are not end sum of a game between integers.
  • Three. The original question never had anything to do with the phases of a human of Kobold dissent, dissecting those phases into tailless and tailed entities.
  • four. "effects" for those of you new to the thread, this term came about because of what some are trying to inject into the Racial Heritage feat combined with the description of the human race in the Core Rule Book (CRB). A somewhat confusing attempt to list a tail as a descriptive attribute like having blue eyes or blonde hair. Something at the heart of most of those that want tails/poison/wings/tentacles/medusa stare/etc for free.
  • five. Racial Heritage gives you the ability to take feats and traits of the race chosen at the time it is taken. This has never been in dispute.
  • six. What is in dispute is if those feats are always useful for the human (and half-breeds) to take. This is where the title of the thread comes in. The Poison example is from a racial feat for the Vishkanyas race called Sleep Venom. This changes the poison the race uses into a sleep poison instead of Dex damage. Humans do not have this poison to change, thus they can not make use of this feat, though they can still take the feat anyways.
  • Seven. RAW. As in Six, since humans do not have tails, they can not use Tail Terror, but can still take the feat regardless.
  • Eight. The abilities and features of their parents indeed. It never implies this anywhere that has been mentioned in these 750 posts.
    Advanced Players Guide wrote:
    "Racial Heritage" The blood of a non-human ancestor flows 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
...

The big point of contention for me is that sleep venom builds off of a listed racial trait as does (probably) a media's's gaze attack (Did someone actually argue for this?) Whereas claws and bite and, yes, even tail build off no listed racial trait. Mechanics it balances out when I look at it. RP wise it works just as well. I am very interested in what the developers end up saying about this.


thaX wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

So let me get this straight-

Human that counts as a Kobold: can't benefit from Tail Terror.

Aasamar, who counts as a Human that counts as a Kobold: can benefit from Tail Terror.

Riiiight.

Looking over the Assimar entry, where exactly does it say they have a tail?

I do see the Scion of Humanity. It is a racial trait that is much like Racial heritage for the Aasimar, but a chosen subtype already done for them. (Human) Hence, we should include Aasimar in the list along with Half-Elf and Half-Orc that can take the Racial Heritage feat. That doesn't really change the underlining issued. None of these have tails.

It's implied in the sidebar about aasimar lizardmen.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
Well,ok, yes, the percentage is enough to have the impact to be a feat but less than full. I would wager it is supposed to be less than half but even that is not clearly stated.

There is no percent RAW, the Racial Heritage simply is and relates to your Ancestor...

THax wrote:
Humans still do not have tails. It isn't that the rules omit this, it is that they do not say they have tails nor that they gain one when convenient. Tail Terror or Racial Heritage in no way changes this.

We are not talking about Humans. We are discussing;

Human + Racial Heritage

very different

THax wrote:
To be quite frank, most GM would not allow a tail in this manner without some very good explanation or a very lenient ruling to passify the player. I, early on, had even suggested a mechanical tail be built for the character in a home game that would be a part of the character's armor. I may make an item for next year's Superstar contest.

If this was allowed in PFS (and it may be) GM's don't have a choice. Just go with the flow.

and as for 'Most GM's'... well the group of GM's I put the question to last weekend at PsyCon Nought and asking other local gaming groups as well (yes, the thread has been going that long)...

...Not a single one thought this trait would impact on the game in the slightest. Players have been doing something similar with teeth and bite attacks for years now...this is nothing new (except someone posted to the boards about using their tail).


Doomed Hero wrote:
PFSRD wrote:


"Not all aasimar are descended from humans. Aasimars can be born of any intelligent race, though human aasimars are the most common. Aasimars of other races usually exemplify the ideals of beauty and skill as seen by their base race. For example, halfling aasimars are small, beautifully proportioned, and display exceptional grace. Half-orc aasimars are slightly larger and stronger than ordinary orcs, with tough skin and metallic claws and tusks—they are likely to be neutral rather than evil, but still display aggression and incredible combat prowess. Less common humanoids, such as lizardfolk, catfolk, tengus, and others, can also produce aasimars, though given these races’ exotic appearance, members of the more common races may have trouble telling such aasimars apart from their kin."

So lets say a Kobold Aasimar, who is so much like another Kobold in appearance that other races have difficulty telling the difference, has the Scion of Humanity trait and takes Racial Heritage Kobold and Tail Terror.

Would that be allowed by RAW?

At what point does the chain of rules break down?

Aasamar are not explicitly described as having tails, but they can look so much like a kobold that other races might not be able to tell the difference. They are also treated as human for all effects related to race, and as kobold for all effects related to race.

Do they have a tail?

Can they take Tail Terror?

If they can, then so can every other Aasimar. If Aasimars can, then so can humans.

The rules do not differentiate.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Torbyne wrote:
thaX wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

So let me get this straight-

Human that counts as a Kobold: can't benefit from Tail Terror.

Aasamar, who counts as a Human that counts as a Kobold: can benefit from Tail Terror.

Riiiight.

Looking over the Assimar entry, where exactly does it say they have a tail?

I do see the Scion of Humanity. It is a racial trait that is much like Racial heritage for the Aasimar, but a chosen subtype already done for them. (Human) Hence, we should include Aasimar in the list along with Half-Elf and Half-Orc that can take the Racial Heritage feat. That doesn't really change the underlining issued. None of these have tails.

It's implied in the sidebar about aasimar lizardmen.

Which book? It isn't in the Bestiary or the Advanced Race Guide.


thaX wrote:
Torbyne wrote:
thaX wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

So let me get this straight-

Human that counts as a Kobold: can't benefit from Tail Terror.

Aasamar, who counts as a Human that counts as a Kobold: can benefit from Tail Terror.

Riiiight.

Looking over the Assimar entry, where exactly does it say they have a tail?

I do see the Scion of Humanity. It is a racial trait that is much like Racial heritage for the Aasimar, but a chosen subtype already done for them. (Human) Hence, we should include Aasimar in the list along with Half-Elf and Half-Orc that can take the Racial Heritage feat. That doesn't really change the underlining issued. None of these have tails.

It's implied in the sidebar about aasimar lizardmen.
Which book? It isn't in the Bestiary or the Advanced Race Guide.

It is in "The Blood of Angels" but also available on The aasimar page of d20pfrpg.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If you took or the requisite traits and feats...sure!

Knock yourself out. Be a Aasimar with a Tail... You'd have to role-play it appropriately and be able to explain yourself to interested passers-by (the ones who weren't regarding you with wonder or fear).

But sure, the if the rules allow it it's my job as the GM to make it work. In a home-game I'd want a backstory but in PFS we don't have the time and once introduced to the rest of the party (who might include Tieflings with horns, walking birdmen etc... we'd get on with the session).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

For examples of races where it is clear that Racial Heritage does not grant anatomical features, look at the Vanara and the Strix. They each have certain anatomical features (respectively, a prehensile tail and wings with a fly speed) that are specifically called out in their racial features. Racial Heritage does not grant you access to those features, and in fact the feats that modify them have the specific racial features as prerequisites. If somebody with Racial Heritage (Vanara) or Racial Heritage (Strix) has a tail or wings, they certainly cannot be used in the ways that the actual races can use them.

The problem with the kobold's tail is that it is never called out anywhere as a specific racial feature, so it is not clear by the rules how you determine whether somebody has a tail -- and the question only comes up because of the existence of the Tail Terror feat. I have never seen anyone deny that a human with Racial Heritage (Elf) could have absurdly large pointed ears, even though "nromal" humans never have ears like that.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
PFSRD wrote:


"Not all aasimar are descended from humans. Aasimars can be born of any intelligent race, though human aasimars are the most common. Aasimars of other races usually exemplify the ideals of beauty and skill as seen by their base race. For example, halfling aasimars are small, beautifully proportioned, and display exceptional grace. Half-orc aasimars are slightly larger and stronger than ordinary orcs, with tough skin and metallic claws and tusks—they are likely to be neutral rather than evil, but still display aggression and incredible combat prowess. Less common humanoids, such as lizardfolk, catfolk, tengus, and others, can also produce aasimars, though given these races’ exotic appearance, members of the more common races may have trouble telling such aasimars apart from their kin."

So lets say a Kobold Aasimar, who is so much like another Kobold in appearance that other races have difficulty telling the difference, has the Scion of Humanity trait and takes Racial Heritage Kobold and Tail Terror.

Would that be allowed by RAW?

If you are a race that has a tail, it would. But none of these have the Human suptype, as that is a race trait that can be taken by the regular Aasimar in the Advanced Race Guide, who is already Human in appearance. I have no idea where the blurb you quote came from, as I do not see it in the two books I have.

I would expect that the Scion trait would change with the counterpart of what the Aasimar is descendent from, gaining the racial subtype of her apparent race. You must admit, you looking at an alternative version of this race, not something "set in stone" when you mention non-human looking Aasimars. If you get an Aasimar that is descended from a Kobold, for example, you would use that creature's description as a part of what the overall character would look like. That would include the tail. I would put to question the need to have a Scion race trait, getting Racial heritage, then getting Tail Terror. I would think, logically, that the apparent race of the character is the subtype it would gain when replacing the Celestial language and altering the native subtype, paralleling the gaining of the Human subtype (and counting as such) for the entry in the ARG.

Of course, this won't make sense to some, it is using common sense.

Dark Archive

Doomed Hero wrote:


Aasamar are not explicitly described as having tails, but they can look so much like a kobold that other races might not be able to tell the difference. They are also treated as human for all effects related to race, and as kobold for all effects related to race.

Do they have a tail?

Can they take Tail Terror?

If they can, then so can every other Aasimar. If Aasimars can, then so can humans.

The rules do not differentiate.

Should we accept that some Aasimar can be of other races as it stated in the published companion, including tailed ones, and thus, those specifically descended from such tailed races with the appropriate feats can make use of Tail Terror, how does a race with a tail, using a feat relating to a tail... in any way, shape or form allow a human, without a tail to make use of the feat?

Kindly explain this jump of logic?


thaX wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
PFSRD wrote:


"Not all aasimar are descended from humans. Aasimars can be born of any intelligent race, though human aasimars are the most common. Aasimars of other races usually exemplify the ideals of beauty and skill as seen by their base race. For example, halfling aasimars are small, beautifully proportioned, and display exceptional grace. Half-orc aasimars are slightly larger and stronger than ordinary orcs, with tough skin and metallic claws and tusks—they are likely to be neutral rather than evil, but still display aggression and incredible combat prowess. Less common humanoids, such as lizardfolk, catfolk, tengus, and others, can also produce aasimars, though given these races’ exotic appearance, members of the more common races may have trouble telling such aasimars apart from their kin."

So lets say a Kobold Aasimar, who is so much like another Kobold in appearance that other races have difficulty telling the difference, has the Scion of Humanity trait and takes Racial Heritage Kobold and Tail Terror.

Would that be allowed by RAW?

If you are a race that has a tail, it would. But none of these have the Human suptype, as that is a race trait that can be taken by the regular Aasimar in the Advanced Race Guide, who is already Human in appearance. I have no idea where the blurb you quote came from, as I do not see it in the two books I have.

I would expect that the Scion trait would change with the counterpart of what the Aasimar is descendent from, gaining the racial subtype of her apparent race. You must admit, you looking at an alternative version of this race, not something "set in stone" when you mention non-human looking Aasimars. If you get an Aasimar that is descended from a Kobold, for example, you would use that creature's description as a part of what the overall character would look like. That would include the tail. I would put to question the need to have a Scion race trait,...

But this is the assumption both side keep making in a rules forum, it is an assumption of what would be "common sense" but RAW you need to just be any tailed aasimar race and then burn two feats for the tail. If this campaign ever gets off the ground than that is probably the way I'll go with it though. MoMS 1/ranger 2/ fighter 9/ Maybe grab bard 1 and the DD the rest.


Suthainn wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:


Aasamar are not explicitly described as having tails, but they can look so much like a kobold that other races might not be able to tell the difference. They are also treated as human for all effects related to race, and as kobold for all effects related to race.

Do they have a tail?

Can they take Tail Terror?

If they can, then so can every other Aasimar. If Aasimars can, then so can humans.

The rules do not differentiate.

Should we accept that some Aasimar can be of other races as it stated in the published companion, including tailed ones, and thus, those specifically descended from such tailed races with the appropriate feats can make use of Tail Terror, how does a race with a tail, using a feat relating to a tail... in any way, shape or form allow a human, without a tail to make use of the feat?

Kindly explain this jump of logic?

Because the rules do not differentiate, in any way, between a human-born aasimar and a kobold-born aasimar. They are mechanically identical.

They don't say a human-born aasimar can't have tails, and the don't say that a kobold-born aasimar can.

The only relevant rules text comes from Scion of Humanity and Racial Heritage, which use the same language, and allow you to count as a different race for the purposes of qualifying for feats.

So all we need to know is that Racial Heritage Kobold allows a character to qualify for Tail Terror.

That's it. It doesn't matter if you are a Kobold-aasimar, or a human-aasimar or a tengu-aasimar, or even just a regular old human. If you take Racial Heritage Kobold you can take Tail Terror, and if you qualify for a feat, you get the benefit of it.

Why is this so hard to follow?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
David knott 242 wrote:
The problem with the kobold's tail is that it is never called out anywhere as a specific racial feature, so it is not clear by the rules how you determine whether somebody has a tail

This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail. straight from the PRD...

The tail is detailed throughout the Kobolds description including how it's used in conversation.

This is RAW...

we aren't talking about 'normal' humans either, we are talking about Humans + Racial Heritage.

Just go back through my last posts you'll find the RAW under spoilers.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Lastblackknight...

Please, please read this.

We are talking about a human.

That the human can take feats and traits from another race and be effected as that race doesn't change the fact that it is still a human. It does not change him, doesn't change his type (like the aasimar Scion of Humanity does for that race) or make him any less human. You count as that race only to check for what effects that character.

Racial Heritage doesn't make him a Half-Kobold. He simply has a history. One that can be used, by him or against him.

Edit... At vs. As

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:


Aasamar are not explicitly described as having tails, but they can look so much like a kobold that other races might not be able to tell the difference. They are also treated as human for all effects related to race, and as kobold for all effects related to race.

Do they have a tail?

Can they take Tail Terror?

If they can, then so can every other Aasimar. If Aasimars can, then so can humans.

The rules do not differentiate.

Should we accept that some Aasimar can be of other races as it stated in the published companion, including tailed ones, and thus, those specifically descended from such tailed races with the appropriate feats can make use of Tail Terror, how does a race with a tail, using a feat relating to a tail... in any way, shape or form allow a human, without a tail to make use of the feat?

Kindly explain this jump of logic?

Because the rules do not differentiate, in any way, between a human-born aasimar and a kobold-born aasimar. They are mechanically identical.

They don't say a human-born aasimar can't have tails, and the don't say that a kobold-born aasimar can.

The only relevant rules text comes from Scion of Humanity and Racial Heritage, which use the same language, and allow you to count as a different race for the purposes of qualifying for feats.

So all we need to know is that Racial Heritage Kobold allows a character to qualify for Tail Terror.

That's it. It doesn't matter if you are a Kobold-aasimar, or a human-aasimar or a tengu-aasimar, or even just a regular old human. If you take Racial Heritage Kobold you can take Tail Terror, and if you qualify for a feat, you get the benefit of it.

Why is this so hard to follow?

Please keep in mind that the Scion of Humanity is written for an entry that is the human looking Aasimar. Look at my post above as to how that may play out. Can anyone point out where that blurb is in the PFSRD? I can not find it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
thaX wrote:

Lastblackknight...

Please, please read this.

We are talking about a human.

That the human can take feats and traits from another race and be effected as that race doesn't change the fact that it is still a human. It does not change him, doesn't change his type (like the aasimar Scion of Humanity does for that race) or make him any less human. You count as that race only to check for what effects that character.

Racial Heritage doesn't make him a Half-Kobold. He simply has a history. One that can be used, by him or against him.

Edit... At vs. As

Except for the RAW bit in the trait that say's ...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...

what part of ...both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats,... do you have issues with?

The RAW doesn't need to go into what percentage of your blood is ancestor and frankly it doesn't matter. At no other point in the rules does they comment on other racial predominant physical traits either.


Here's the page thaX.

It's labeled SIDEBAR: NONHUMAN AASIMARS. It's located right below the race point breakdown chart.


lastblacknight wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
The problem with the kobold's tail is that it is never called out anywhere as a specific racial feature, so it is not clear by the rules how you determine whether somebody has a tail

This short, reptilian humanoid has scaled skin, a snout filled with tiny teeth, and a long tail. straight from the PRD...

The tail is detailed throughout the Kobolds description including how it's used in conversation.

This is RAW...

we aren't talking about 'normal' humans either, we are talking about Humans + Racial Heritage.

Just go back through my last posts you'll find the RAW under spoilers.

It is RAW, but it's just a tail limb. It's not an effect caused from a Trait or Feat or similar subject, which is required for Racial Heritage to apply. You don't count as a Kobold when it comes to all of the other stuff, so why are you saying it as if you do?

Explain how taking Racial Heritage makes you differ from "normal humans." Because I hate to say it, they really aren't, considering that by RAW, your (sub)type does not change, which means you're still Humanoid (Human).

**EDIT**

@ Doomed Hero: Although applicable, there is this clause.

Non-Human Aasimars wrote:
Non-human aasimars have the same statistics as human aasimars with the exception of size. Thus a halfling aasimar is Small but otherwise possesses the same statistics and abilities as a human aasimar—the difference is purely cosmetic. Non-human aasimars do not possess any of the racial abilities of their base race. However, they are usually raised in the same cultural context as other members of their base race, and thus generally adopt the same fighting style as their peers, use the same types of weapons and armor, and study the same skills.

It first says that non-human Aasimars use human statistics. It also says afterward that non-human Aasimars do not have any racial abilities of the base race.

By my interpretation, this does not restrict them from having a tail, and would qualify them for it if they are the correct base race. However, by your interpretation, of a Tail being an effect (from an ability related to the race), the Aasimar would not.

701 to 750 of 1,170 << first < prev | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 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.