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


Rules Questions

801 to 850 of 1,170 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Suthainn wrote:

Much as I dislike to repost, where the rules are unclear, we can certainly look at the precedent of similar feats to understand how it should work, as Paizo Devs have suggested a number of times.

Here are rule texts from various feats that grant the use of extra attacks and/or limbs (regardless of how much we may or may not like the feats or think they are 'silly').

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, basic English language. Nowhere in Tail Terror is such language present, RAW you do not grow or gain a tail, one must already be present.

For those in favour of Tail Terror granting you an actual tail, can you see the problem?

I doubt this will have any impact, as much as I agree. I've made the point several times; As I said before, the designers followed a pretty obvious paradigm when writing feats and abilities: instances where you are physically changed are described explicitly as such in every situation where it can happen in the rules.

Somehow, that is not enough to convince some people who want to believe that in this one scenario, it is implicit and requires no written confirmation. It is ridiculous shenaniganery.


thaX wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Actually, returning to skim the thread, I want to ask people about something: if you accept that making a claw attack (via Barbarian rage power) does not need a claw (as in the standard definition thereof), but instead lets you use your fingernails - or, barring that, your fingers - to deal slashing damage equivalent to a scimitar, can you also accept that you your "tail" is not a swishy flapping tail (as per the standard understanding), but rather the (very typical) human backside (see definitions 5 or 6), and thus you can use that to make the bludgeoning attack that is a tail slap?

Or does that, too, stretch the suspension of disbelief?

I and others have maintained that "Twerking" is not enough to satisfy the use of the Feat. It would be an odd maneuver that requires one to bend slightly and twist, or do a wrestling move (Rear View down by one of the Paradactles Divas). It isn't an attack one can do as a part of a full round attack action, that is, doing a tail slap in addition to other attacks. To "Twerk" one would conceivably need a full round action just to do the one attack. That isn't what the feat in question provides.

First: sorry, I forgot then just overlooked the twerking comments. However, that's definitively not the kind of movement I was thinking of - nor does that even make much sense anyway to be the presumed kind of attack. (The attack with a tail, as I've always seen it, presumes a side-swipe, which is effectively a swing of the hips+ - I'd see something similar in this case.)

Second: Why? Are you arguing that the rules of attack speed within the game are controlled by our reality?

The rules allow you to full attack (that is take multiple attacks) with a muzzle-loaded gun.

The rules allow a human to have a really, really long tongue - longer than any human has ever had. Several people have allowed this combination to exist.

These are patently preposterous.

Look. If you're going to argue, "real life" - that's fine. If you're going to argue, "rules" - that's fine. The two don't intersect, though. Either hold to one, or the other. Trying to combine the two is a terrible idea. If you're going to say, "Humans don't have functional tails, because they don't have functional tails." - that's fine.

But demanding that actions fit within a six-second interval when they don't already isn't a good idea because the entire system begins breaking.

As I've said before - if you rule based on the wording "with your tail", that you have to have a tail already, that's fine. In fact, that's the most normal rendering in the English language.

This is one method of permitting that within the rules and within that context.

However stating that "people can't move that quickly" makes no sense within the broader contexts of the rules already. It's a very dissonant double standard (as is stating that you can't make more than one sword strike within six seconds - fencing has proven this incorrect).

That said, I don't agree that it would grant the sub-type. There are too many subtle but important rules that would be altered and too many side-effects to account for.

el cuervo wrote:
Nevermind the part of the feat regarding kobold tail attachments... I'd like to see someone attach one to their very human rear end. XD

Are those magic items? No. Because they are mundane, they aren't part of the ability granted - unless, of course a GM chooses to read them into "and so on" which would be very interesting.

And Mario doesn't seem to have too much trouble with that... :)

el cuervo wrote:

Look, here's an idea. If you want to play the "some humans are born with a tail in the real world so it should apply here" game, then let's do it.

How many people have been born with tail-like appendages reported to medical journals? According to Wikipedia, only 23 since 1884. Take into consideration that approximately 12 billion people were born in that time.

So you have, 23/12,000,000,000. Okay, now roll 1d1.916666666666667e-9 to determine if you are a human born with a tail.

Problem solved, thread closed. Let's move on.

If you force your PCs - which are special by default - to conform to normal human statistics, you're applying a house rule. This is the wrong thread for that.

The point isn't, "You have to allow this."
The point is, "Currently, there's a really dissonant double-standard that is difficult to accept."

The only reason I'm even arguing on this side at all is because of this really odd double standard:

1) human finger(nail)s can totally deal damage like a slashing weapon that is much more powerful without causing physical problems because rage (despite the fact that nails would rip off), humans can have excessively long tongues, and human limits based on speed are irrelevant

2) human tails don't conform to population statistics, so a feat that would grant an element of non-human ancestry doesn't let you deviate from the norm, and/or human limits based on speed are relevant

I would really love a more internally consistent reason for disallowing the combo, but it's not being provided - the reasons are inconsistent with themselves and with the rest of the game. And the combo isn't that potent anyway, and requires two feats to be able to acquire in the first place.

Given the ambiguity that has developed due to the understanding here, the demeaning vitriol - on both sides - is really odd.

EDIT:

thaX wrote:
I had mentioned this and have read the blurb in question. When getting a non-human Aasimar, it specifically says it does not retain any human qualities.

I'm glad you mentioned this, as I'd forgotten to.

That was, at least, my understanding of it.


Anyway:
1) the most common English understanding is that you need to have a tail in order to use this
- 1-a) one alternate take is the permit your rear end to be your "tail", (though some refuse this do to "it would take to long" to use as a full-round action)

2) a secondary understanding is that this provides a tail and thus a tail-slap attack; this uses a non-standard but still correct English understanding, but many don't like it because it's not explicitly spelled out, unlike normal rules elements that do the same thing (going against the reductionist interpretation)

Does this sum things up adequately?


If you qualify for a feat, and you take the feat, you get to use the feat.

Period.

A normal human doesn't qualify for something like multiweapon fighting. They would have to have additional limbs first because that's what is in the prerequisites. It's a non issue to this discussion which is only about prerequisites.

Those of you arguing that this combination does not work have yet to back that up with any relevant rules citations.

So here's my challenge to you: Find me one feat that a character can't use even if they qualify for it.


Tacticslion wrote:

Anyway:

1) the most common English understanding is that you need to have a tail in order to use this
- 1-a) one alternate take is the permit your rear end to be your "tail", (though some refuse this do to "it would take to long" to use as a full-round action)

2) a secondary understanding is that this provides a tail and thus a tail-slap attack; this uses a non-standard but still correct English understanding, but many don't like it because it's not explicitly spelled out, unlike normal rules elements that do the same thing (going against the reductionist interpretation)

Does this sum things up adequately?

Both of these arguments are actually diversionary. They don't matter.

The only relevant parts of the language are the prerequisites, which explicitly allow the combination.

Don't let the argument deviate into irrelevant semantics. That's where things become confusing and unwinable for both sides.

We really need to stick to the most basic factors.


Tacticslion wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Nevermind the part of the feat regarding kobold tail attachments... I'd like to see someone attach one to their very human rear end. XD

Are those magic items? No. Because they are mundane, they aren't part of the ability granted - unless, of course a GM chooses to read them into "and so on" which would be very interesting.

And Mario doesn't seem to have too much trouble with that... :)

Mario is a completely irrelevant argument. As for the tail attachments being magic items or not, it really doesn't matter, since Tail Terror specifically states that you can wear kobold tail attachments as part of the feat. The feat itself is the "effect of race" in question, and we aren't allowed to pick and choose what parts of the feat apply.

You don't have a tail? Then you can't wear tail attachments or make a Tail Slap natural attack, even if you have the feat.

Tacticslion wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

Look, here's an idea. If you want to play the "some humans are born with a tail in the real world so it should apply here" game, then let's do it.

How many people have been born with tail-like appendages reported to medical journals? According to Wikipedia, only 23 since 1884. Take into consideration that approximately 12 billion people were born in that time.

So you have, 23/12,000,000,000. Okay, now roll 1d1.916666666666667e-9 to determine if you are a human born with a tail.

Problem solved, thread closed. Let's move on.

If you force your PCs - which are special by default - to conform to normal human statistics, you're applying a house rule. This is the wrong thread for that.

I will refer you to the Description Rules. Seems to me that core rules conform to normal human statistics, too. Pay particular attention to this line: "Consult your GM before making a character that does not conform to these statistics."

In fact, we can further extrapolate from that and say that all human abnormalities not covered by feats (there are some) must fall within the statistical norm or be okayed by GM. That would include tails, which have a 1 in 500 million chance of occurring!

Dark Archive

A human Barbarian takes Dazing Spell as his human feat, qualified for, unusable.

Hell, a human Wizard takes Dazing spell as his human feat, qualified for, unusable.

Do you meet the requirements to take the feat? Yes.
Do you possess the resources to USE the feat? No.

That's the point.

Also, it'd be nice if everyone arguing for the tail didn't ignore all the posts stating actual rules text from feats that do grant additional body parts, you know, in the rules.


el cuervo wrote:
Charender wrote:


And I will reiterate my counter argument. Being left handed isn't normal either. You only have about a 1 in 10 chance to be left handed. Exactly where do you draw the limit on your players? 1 in 500 odds deformities are allowed, but nothing with less probablity than that?

The normal humans only rule is a silly and stupid limitation that is not supported in the rules.

That some humans are left-handed is an accepted paradigm. It's not abnormal or weird to be left handed. Having a 10% chance to be left handed? Totally feasible. Roll 1d10 - did you get a 1? Congratulations, you're left handed.

Are you born with a tail? No, because the odds are astronomical. Quite literally, a 0.0000000002% chance of it. That is 11 orders of...

First, you didn't answer my question. What level of improbability do you find acceptable? 10^-1? 10^-5, Maybe even 10^-10(but not 10^-11, that is just too much)?

Second, Accepted paradigm by who? There are no rules delineating every single possible "accepted" variance in human appearance or behavior. You have created a line in the sand YOU are comfortable with, but that that line is complete arbitrary and not part of the RAW.


Suthainn wrote:

Much as I dislike to repost, where the rules are unclear, we can certainly look at the precedent of similar feats to understand how it should work, as Paizo Devs have suggested a number of times.

Here are rule texts from various feats that grant the use of extra attacks and/or limbs (regardless of how much we may or may not like the feats or think they are 'silly').

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, basic English language. Nowhere in Tail Terror is such language present, RAW you do not grow or gain a tail, one must already be present.

For those in favour of Tail Terror granting you an actual tail, can you see the problem?

The language is also usually very clear when something like "Having a tail" is a requirement of the feat. Tail Terror does not list "Have a tail" as an explicit requirement. It is a badly written feat on both accounts.

Dark Archive

Charender wrote:


The language is also usually very clear when something like "Having a tail" is a requirement of the feat. Tail Terror does not list "Have a tail" as an explicit requirement. It is a badly written feat on both accounts.

Perhaps so, however let's stick to RAW not speculation, the requirements aren't even being argued here, you took Racial Heritage, you took Tail Terror, fact. However, as the language of the feat shows when compared to the other feats which grant additional attacks Tail Terror does not grant a tail, the feat is useless to you.

Feats which grant additional limbs, etc specifically call it out in the language used, Tail Terror does not use that language, if you're arguing that 'you can' means the same in the English language as 'you have' then well, we have an entirely different issue and one that's likely unresolvable.


Doomed Hero wrote:

If you qualify for a feat, and you take the feat, you get to use the feat.

Period.

A normal human doesn't qualify for something like multiweapon fighting. They would have to have additional limbs first because that's what is in the prerequisites. It's a non issue to this discussion which is only about prerequisites.

Those of you arguing that this combination does not work have yet to back that up with any relevant rules citations.

So here's my challenge to you: Find me one feat that a character can't use even if they qualify for it.

So I can take Weapon Focus (Greatsword), not have a Greatsword to attack with, and still get a +1 to each of my attack rolls? By your logic, you can, and that's how it works. Just like how I can supposedly take Tail Terror, not have a Tail limb to attack with, and still perform Tail Attacks. Except, in both Real Life and in the rules, it doesn't work that way.

Actually, since all "humans," no matter how different they may be (Abominable Human, anyone?), by your side's theories, are considered "normal," and therefore fall under the subject of "normal humans," ergo "normal humans" do qualify for Multiweapon Fighting. I just have to take Racial Heritage (Half-Orc) or (Half-Elf), and have a total of 6 arms to attack with.

Universal Monster Rules: Natural Attacks wrote:
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

There is your rules citation, with the bolded part that shows the intent of a limb being referenced as something needed to be available to make the natural attack, and if it's occupied or absent, the natural attack associated with that limb cannot be taken. This is not only real life common sense, but is the RAI implied by the RAW.


Charender wrote:
el cuervo wrote:
Charender wrote:


And I will reiterate my counter argument. Being left handed isn't normal either. You only have about a 1 in 10 chance to be left handed. Exactly where do you draw the limit on your players? 1 in 500 odds deformities are allowed, but nothing with less probablity than that?

The normal humans only rule is a silly and stupid limitation that is not supported in the rules.

That some humans are left-handed is an accepted paradigm. It's not abnormal or weird to be left handed. Having a 10% chance to be left handed? Totally feasible. Roll 1d10 - did you get a 1? Congratulations, you're left handed.

Are you born with a tail? No, because the odds are astronomical. Quite literally, a 0.0000000002% chance of it. That is 11 orders of...

First, you didn't answer my question. What level of improbability do you find acceptable? 10^-1? 10^-5, Maybe even 10^-10(but not 10^-11, that is just too much)?

Second, Accepted paradigm by who? There are no rules delineating every single possible "accepted" variance in human appearance or behavior. You have created a line in the sand YOU are comfortable with, but that that line is complete arbitrary and not part of the RAW.

I'll make this simple and humour you, since you're hung up on a completely irrelevant argument and since you can't be right where it counts, you need to be right somewhere, apparently. If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that?

I'll direct you to the post I wrote in response to Tacticslion about conforming to the Description statistics, which cites that falling outside of the statistical norms for each of the races requires GM fiat, but you'll probably ignore it and counter with another pointless argument. I'm glad you don't play at my table, because you're being unnecessarily pedantic about this. Humans don't have tails.


Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The language is also usually very clear when something like "Having a tail" is a requirement of the feat. Tail Terror does not list "Have a tail" as an explicit requirement. It is a badly written feat on both accounts.

Perhaps so, however let's stick to RAW not speculation, the requirements aren't even being argued here, you took Racial Heritage, you took Tail Terror, fact. However, as the language of the feat shows when compared to the other feats which grant additional attacks Tail Terror does not grant a tail, the feat is useless to you.

Comparing it to similar feats is also speculating. My point is that the feat doesn't use ANY of the language normally found in similar feats. As it stands, there are 3 possible interpretations that makes this combination work.

1. A tail is not listed in the requirements, thus "You make an attack with your tail." is really implying that you gain a tail as a benefit of the feat.
2. The feat requires a tail. Humans can have a tail. Done.
3. The feat requires a functional kobold tail which is part of the Kobold apprearance. Apprearance is an effect related to race, thus Racial Heritage: Kobold allows you to have a normal kobold tail.

Those are all valid interpretations of the RAW that allow this combo to work. Beyond that everything else is speculation about the intent of the developers. Either the feat combo was intended to grant a tail attack irregardless of anatomy, or tail terror was intended as a bonus only for natural born kobolds. Intent cannot be answered without a FAQ response from a developer.


el cuervo wrote:


I'll make this simple and humour you, since you're hung up on a completely irrelevant argument and since you can't be right where it counts, you need to be right somewhere, apparently. If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that?

I'll direct you to the post I wrote in response to Tacticslion about conforming to the Description statistics, which cites that falling outside of the statistical norms for each of the races requires GM fiat, but you'll probably ignore it and counter with another pointless argument. I'm glad you don't play at my table, because you're being unnecessarily pedantic about this. Humans don't have tails.

Ok, 10^-2, got it. Great, so I can be left handed, but I can't have 6 fingers on my left hand(0.2% probability).

Now I will say this really carefully, because this is the part you keep missing....

"If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that? "

What page of my rule book is that on?


Charender wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The language is also usually very clear when something like "Having a tail" is a requirement of the feat. Tail Terror does not list "Have a tail" as an explicit requirement. It is a badly written feat on both accounts.

Perhaps so, however let's stick to RAW not speculation, the requirements aren't even being argued here, you took Racial Heritage, you took Tail Terror, fact. However, as the language of the feat shows when compared to the other feats which grant additional attacks Tail Terror does not grant a tail, the feat is useless to you.

Comparing it to similar feats is also speculating. My point is that the feat doesn't use ANY of the language normally found in similar feats. As it stands, there are 3 possible interpretations that makes this combination work.

1. A tail is not listed in the requirements, thus "You make an attack with your tail." is really implying that you gain a tail as a benefit of the feat.
2. The feat requires a tail. Humans can have a tail. Done.
3. The feat requires a functional kobold tail which is part of the Kobold apprearance. Apprearance is an effect related to race, thus Racial Heritage: Kobold allows you to have a normal kobold tail.

Those are all valid interpretations of the RAW that allow this combo to work. Beyond that everything else is speculation about the intent of the developers. Either the feat combo was intended to grant a tail attack irregardless of anatomy, or tail terror was intended as a bonus only for natural born kobolds. Intent cannot be answered without a FAQ response from a developer.

You're forgetting the fourth possible interpretation:

4. Humans are not kobolds, are not intended to take this feat, do not have a tail, and thus cannot tail slap.

You're applying liberal interpretation of the rules; saying that appearance is an "effect of race" is an enormous stretch.

Comparing to existing feats is NOT speculation; there is the concept of precedence, set by existing feats and rules which have been FAQ'd and/or errata'd, which is apparently foreign to you.


el cuervo wrote:


You're forgetting the fourth possible interpretation:

4. Humans are not kobolds, are not intended to take this feat, do not have a tail, and thus cannot tail slap.

You're applying liberal interpretation of the rules; saying that appearance is an "effect of race" is an enormous stretch.

Comparing to existing feats is NOT speculation; there is the concept...

Charender wrote:


there are 3 possible interpretations that makes this combination work.

How does your #4 fit into the category I mentioned?


Charender wrote:
el cuervo wrote:


I'll make this simple and humour you, since you're hung up on a completely irrelevant argument and since you can't be right where it counts, you need to be right somewhere, apparently. If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that?

I'll direct you to the post I wrote in response to Tacticslion about conforming to the Description statistics, which cites that falling outside of the statistical norms for each of the races requires GM fiat, but you'll probably ignore it and counter with another pointless argument. I'm glad you don't play at my table, because you're being unnecessarily pedantic about this. Humans don't have tails.

Ok, 10^-2, got it. Great, so I can be left handed, but I can't have 6 fingers on my left hand(0.2% probability).

Now I will say this really carefully, because this is the part you keep missing....

"If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that? "

What page of my rule book is that on?

You didn't ask about your rule book or THE rule book, you asked me about my personal opinion on the matter, and since it's a ridiculous question with no relevance, I gave you an asinine answer. Please, let's get back on track: humans don't have tails and can't have tails unless there is some rule that explicitly grants a tail to humans. So far, we have determined that none exist.


el cuervo wrote:
Charender wrote:
el cuervo wrote:


I'll make this simple and humour you, since you're hung up on a completely irrelevant argument and since you can't be right where it counts, you need to be right somewhere, apparently. If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that?

I'll direct you to the post I wrote in response to Tacticslion about conforming to the Description statistics, which cites that falling outside of the statistical norms for each of the races requires GM fiat, but you'll probably ignore it and counter with another pointless argument. I'm glad you don't play at my table, because you're being unnecessarily pedantic about this. Humans don't have tails.

Ok, 10^-2, got it. Great, so I can be left handed, but I can't have 6 fingers on my left hand(0.2% probability).

Now I will say this really carefully, because this is the part you keep missing....

"If I can't roll it on a 1d100, then it is statistically improbable and I won't allow it -- how's that? "

What page of my rule book is that on?

You didn't ask about your rule book or THE rule book, you asked me about my personal opinion on the matter, and since it's a ridiculous question with no relevance, I gave you an asinine answer. Please, let's get back on track: humans don't have tails and can't have tails.[Citation needed]

FTFY


My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes. Is there a rule that says humans can have tails? No.

How about a rule that says my human can shoot lasers out of his eyeballs? Nothing against it... must be allowed. Oh don't worry, it's only fluff, there's no mechanical advantage. Do you not see the flaws in this logic?

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

You may want to edit your quote of me since I have edited my own post to clarify.

Shadow Lodge

Charender wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The language is also usually very clear when something like "Having a tail" is a requirement of the feat. Tail Terror does not list "Have a tail" as an explicit requirement. It is a badly written feat on both accounts.

Perhaps so, however let's stick to RAW not speculation, the requirements aren't even being argued here, you took Racial Heritage, you took Tail Terror, fact. However, as the language of the feat shows when compared to the other feats which grant additional attacks Tail Terror does not grant a tail, the feat is useless to you.

Comparing it to similar feats is also speculating. My point is that the feat doesn't use ANY of the language normally found in similar feats. As it stands, there are 3 possible interpretations that makes this combination work.

1. A tail is not listed in the requirements, thus "You make an attack with your tail." is really implying that you gain a tail as a benefit of the feat.
2. The feat requires a tail. Humans can have a tail. Done.
3. The feat requires a functional kobold tail which is part of the Kobold apprearance. Apprearance is an effect related to race, thus Racial Heritage: Kobold allows you to have a normal kobold tail.

Those are all valid interpretations of the RAW that allow this combo to work. Beyond that everything else is speculation about the intent of the developers. Either the feat combo was intended to grant a tail attack irregardless of anatomy, or tail terror was intended as a bonus only for natural born kobolds. Intent cannot be answered without a FAQ response from a developer.

Those are not all valid interpretations of RAW

1. We have shown repeatedly other feats (such as Whip Mastery) have the exact same grammatical construction ("You can do lethal damage with a whip.") Just as it is very, very clear Whip Mastery does not imply you gain a whip Tail terror very, very clearly does NOT imply you gain a tail.

2. Humans CANNOT have a tail. By RAW a human is a humanoid and has two arms, two legs, one head and no tail.

3. Appearance is NOT an effect related to race anymore than the +2 to Dex is an effect of being an elf. I can't take Racial Heritage and say the effect I get is an extra +2 to Dex. I also can't take Racial Heritage and say I get a tail.

Designer

13 people marked this as a favorite.
el cuervo wrote:

My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

This is entirely correct. I hate to say this folks, I really do, but we do expect and modicum of common sense when it comes to the finer points of rules adjudication. If your half-orc has kobold heritage, it does not mean it has a tail and can get the tail slap feat, unless your GM decides (for whatever reason) you have a tail.


el cuervo wrote:

My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

What you don't see to understand is that the "it doesn't work argument" relies on 3 things.

1. Tail Terror requires a tail to operate.
2. Humans don't have tails or the tail that a human has is insufficient.
3. Racial Heritage: Kobold does not allow you to have a tail.

If and only if all 3 of these statements are true, then a human cannot make use of Tail Terror. If any of these 3 statements is false, then the combo of RH: Kobold + Tail Terror will work by RAW.

Statement 1 relies on the implication that Tail Terror requires a tail even though tail is not listed in the feat requirements.
Statement 2 relies on interpreting the "tail" implication as a fully functional kobold tail, which is an extremely weak argument because the type of tail is never listed as a requirement, it is only implied.
Statement 3 relies on accepting your assertion that appearance is not an "effect related to race" which is absurd given what we know about inheritance and genetics.

#2 is your strongest statement, and it is still fairly uncompelling.

Designer

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:


What you don't see to understand is that the "it doesn't work argument" relies on 3 things.
1. Tail Terror requires a tail to operate.
2. Humans don't have tails or the tail that a human has is insufficient.
3. Racial Heritage: Kobold does not allow you to have a tail.

If and only if all 3 of these statements are true, then a human cannot make use of Tail Terror. If any of these 3 statements is false, then the combo of RH: Kobold + Tail Terror will work by RAW.

All of these statements are true.


And boom goes the dynamite.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Thank you, Stephen.

To clarify, though, I still think one can TAKE the feat, just not make USE of it until a tail is provided, such as getting a Monkey Belt or morphing into an animal as a druid.

Getting back to the Aasimar, the use of a non-human Aasimar is a DM call, and it specifically says that one that is not human looking loses it's human qualities. I would assume that would mean it either can not take Scion of Humanity or that taking that alternative trait would be changed to make use of the race the character appears to be.

See my example above.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The effect that the feat mentions is not a descriptive quality, but explaining that anything that can effect the new chosen race can now effect the character. Tails have nothing to do with that.

BTW, Stephen is a Paizo designer...

Dark Archive

Charender wrote:


The only valid interpretation is that of the dev team. So without a response from the dev team, that is merely your opinion.

I think you missed a couple of rather relevant posts...


Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The only valid interpretation is that of the dev team. So without a response from the dev team, that is merely your opinion.
I think you missed a couple of rather relevant posts...

No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers combined with getting ninjaed.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The only valid interpretation is that of the dev team. So without a response from the dev team, that is merely your opinion.
I think you missed a couple of rather relevant posts...
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers.

Fair enough, well regardless, at least the issue is settled now and we can all come together in the spirit of joy and find common ground to argue other finicky rules points over! ;)


Suthainn wrote:

A human Barbarian takes Dazing Spell as his human feat, qualified for, unusable.

Hell, a human Wizard takes Dazing spell as his human feat, qualified for, unusable.

Do you meet the requirements to take the feat? Yes.
Do you possess the resources to USE the feat? No.

That's the point.

Also, it'd be nice if everyone arguing for the tail didn't ignore all the posts stating actual rules text from feats that do grant additional body parts, you know, in the rules.

Metamagic Feats Description wrote:
"A metamagic feat lets a spellcaster prepare and cast a spell with greater effect."

Try again.


Suthainn wrote:


Fair enough, well regardless, at least the issue is settled now and we can all come together in the spirit of joy and find common ground to argue other finicky rules points over! ;)

Yeah, I am fine with the RAI clarification. I just get annoyed when people claim RAW says something it does not. Both positions in the case were making pretty large extrapolations off of a very tiny amount of actual RAW.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers combined with getting ninjaed.

Ninja'd no. But I am very sneaky for an anti-paladin. ;)


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

This is entirely correct. I hate to say this folks, I really do, but we do expect and modicum of common sense when it comes to the finer points of rules adjudication. If your half-orc has kobold heritage, it does not mean it has a tail and can get the tail slap feat, unless your GM decides (for whatever reason) you have a tail.

So then a Kobold Aasimar is fine, but a human aasimar is not, even though they are mechanically identical?

Please explain this.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Charender wrote:
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers combined with getting ninjaed.
Ninja'd no. But I am very sneaky for an anti-paladin. ;)

On a side note, there goes my shot at getting this thread to 1000 posts.

:(


Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The only valid interpretation is that of the dev team. So without a response from the dev team, that is merely your opinion.
I think you missed a couple of rather relevant posts...
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers.
Fair enough, well regardless, at least the issue is settled now and we can all come together in the spirit of joy and find common ground to argue other finicky rules points over! ;)

The issue is not settled.

Stephen is a designer, and his opinion has a great deal of merit, but until we get an actual FAQ on the issue, or a hard ruling from Jason, the subject is still unclear.

Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Charender wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Charender wrote:
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers combined with getting ninjaed.
Ninja'd no. But I am very sneaky for an anti-paladin. ;)

On a side note, there goes my shot at getting this thread to 1000 posts.

:(

LOL! You didn't know? My black blade is called Threadkiller. ;)


Doomed Hero wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:
Suthainn wrote:
Charender wrote:


The only valid interpretation is that of the dev team. So without a response from the dev team, that is merely your opinion.
I think you missed a couple of rather relevant posts...
No, just got "Designer" Confused with the other title for the 3rd party publishers.
Fair enough, well regardless, at least the issue is settled now and we can all come together in the spirit of joy and find common ground to argue other finicky rules points over! ;)

The issue is not settled.

Stephen is a designer, and his opinion has a great deal of merit, but until we get an actual FAQ on the issue, or a hard ruling from Jason, the subject is still unclear.

The only thing that is unclear is the exact limits RAW/RAI places on choosing your appearance.

Aasimar with scion of humanity -> Can have a tail
Human -> cannot have a tail.

There are all sorts of things in between those two positions that are up in the air.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

This is entirely correct. I hate to say this folks, I really do, but we do expect and modicum of common sense when it comes to the finer points of rules adjudication. If your half-orc has kobold heritage, it does not mean it has a tail and can get the tail slap feat, unless your GM decides (for whatever reason) you have a tail.

So then a Kobold Aasimar is fine, but a human aasimar is not, even though they are mechanically identical?

Please explain this.

A Kobold Aasimar with Tail Terror, according to RAW, is applicable due to the following clauses:

Non-Human Aasimars wrote:
Non-human aasimars have the same statistics as human aasimars with the exception of size...Non-human aasimars do not possess any of the racial abilities of their base race.

From this, I postulate the following:

Kobold Aasimar has the same stats as Human Aasimar. (Barring size.)

Kobold Aasimar does not possess any of the racial abilities of kobolds.

Since having a tail is neither a racial ability nor a statistic, it would allow the Kobold Aasimar to have a tail on character creation. Whereas the Human Aasimar, akin to its mortal cousin, probably does not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing is, looking at the kobold aasimar build option... an orc aasimar with a bite attack, two claws and two wing slaps seems better than a tail.

This basically cheats racial heritage by making it a racial trait for aasimar now. Even stronger as you get the appearance and all with it. By RAW (and by cheese) a kobold aasimar could still take scion of humanity, racial heritage orc and get bite, tail, claws and wings? It's cheesy and probably not RAI but RAW actually looks more solid for it than the last build.

Get yourself some martial versatility and feral combat training and get all those attacks up to D6 with 1.5 STR; dip MOMS and brawler archetype...

Ok, I can live with this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
el cuervo wrote:

Mario is a completely irrelevant argument. As for the tail attachments being magic items or not, it really doesn't matter, since Tail Terror specifically states that you can wear kobold tail attachments as part of the feat. The feat itself is the "effect of race" in question, and we aren't allowed to pick and choose what parts of the feat apply.

You don't have a tail? Then you can't wear tail attachments or make a Tail Slap natural attack, even if you have the feat.

1) My argument about the items was in reference to the kobold heritage, not Tail Terror, but conceded that Tail Terror does, in fact, allow those things.

2) ... and you fussed at me for missing your grin. Alas. However, Mario has had a number of power ups over the years - basically pieces of equipment/suits - that he attaches to himself in order to grant him tail attacks. Thus answering your desire to see a tail-attachment equipment without an actual tail. That was all it was there for.

Speaking of Mario-related things, Princess Peach has a mean "tail" attack that she can utilize within six seconds with other attacks. While that is expressly a video game (and not Pathfinder), it is an example of how such an attack could function within general parameters, much like how claw attacks or other effects could function with regular human fingers, even though fingers are notably terrible at being actual weapons without unusual - dare I say nearly "magical" enhancement.

el cuervo wrote:
I will refer you to the Description Rules. Seems to me that core rules conform to normal human statistics, too. Pay particular attention to this line: "Consult your GM before making a character that does not conform to these statistics."

The thing I looked at earlier? Sure, refer me to that. I'll definitely consult my GM before making a human character younger than sixteen and older than 90, shorter than 4'2" or taller than 6'6", that weighs less than 130 lbs or more than 220 lbs. I will do so, because those are the only statistics in that section.

That isn't real life, though.

human weight, human height, human life expectancy, Ageing, adult. Not really modeled solidly by game mechanics (the average being 136.7 lbs in the adult world population does not measure to the minimum 130 lbs, but average 175 lbs statistical spread of PF-based humans. Heck, that doesn't even cover Europe, the generally supposed "basis" for fantasy works such as Pathfinder's continent Avistan (though Golarion also includes many non-European-based countries in Avistan).

Real life statistics are not relevant to creating player characters.

Also speaking of the reality (or not) of Pathfinder, there is one really, really big thing that's been entirely ignored in this discussion of real-life and PF characters. hybrid biology.

The existence of the feat means that most of the normal biological things that we take for granted are no longer true, because the feat doesn't limit you to anything other than a humanoid race, unless we presume that all humanoid races have the same number of chromosomes (or have a varying number as to always produce viable offspring, though I'm pretty sure that's not possible), similar-enough mating and courtship patterns, breeding seasons, non-disruptive antigenic reactions, and similar.

It just doesn't work like our biology or conform to our world's standards.

In any event, your house rule is just that - a house rule, and thus isn't applicable here.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Charender wrote:


What you don't see to understand is that the "it doesn't work argument" relies on 3 things.
1. Tail Terror requires a tail to operate.
2. Humans don't have tails or the tail that a human has is insufficient.
3. Racial Heritage: Kobold does not allow you to have a tail.

If and only if all 3 of these statements are true, then a human cannot make use of Tail Terror. If any of these 3 statements is false, then the combo of RH: Kobold + Tail Terror will work by RAW.

All of these statements are true.

Awesome! Good to know the RAI! Thanks, Stephen! I always appreciate the Dev teams' replies.

If you're able, could we get some sort of FAQ on this to make it more official, especially in regards to PFS where this is most important?

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
LOL! You didn't know? My black blade is called Threadkiller. ;)

I kind of wish in this case. Alas, it still went on.

EDIT:

Doomed Hero wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:

Anyway:

1) the most common English understanding is that you need to have a tail in order to use this
- 1-a) one alternate take is the permit your rear end to be your "tail", (though some refuse this do to "it would take to long" to use as a full-round action)

2) a secondary understanding is that this provides a tail and thus a tail-slap attack; this uses a non-standard but still correct English understanding, but many don't like it because it's not explicitly spelled out, unlike normal rules elements that do the same thing (going against the reductionist interpretation)

Does this sum things up adequately?

Both of these arguments are actually diversionary. They don't matter.

The only relevant parts of the language are the prerequisites, which explicitly allow the combination.

Don't let the argument deviate into irrelevant semantics. That's where things become confusing and unwinable for both sides.

We really need to stick to the most basic factors.

It's a contention of RAW.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

This is entirely correct. I hate to say this folks, I really do, but we do expect and modicum of common sense when it comes to the finer points of rules adjudication. If your half-orc has kobold heritage, it does not mean it has a tail and can get the tail slap feat, unless your GM decides (for whatever reason) you have a tail.

Actually, Stephen, a tail is not in the prerequisites. Being a kobold is. Thus you can take the feat by RAW (though, since you've weighed in this is clearly not RAI). If you wish to make it more air-tight, please change the prerequisites.

Also, thank you for editing his comment.


thaX wrote:

The effect that the feat mentions is not a descriptive quality, but explaining that anything that can effect the new chosen race can now effect the character. Tails have nothing to do with that.

BTW, Stephen is a Paizo designer...

You mean Mr. Radney-Macfarland, don't you? Or His Darkness, slayer of dreams perhaps?


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
el cuervo wrote:

My goodness, you're a feisty one. Is a tail a characteristic of a human? No. Is a tail a characteristic of a kobold? Yes.

Now that we've cleared that up, let's move on. Tail Terror doesn't grant you a tail because you need to be a kobold to take Tail Terror. Racial Heritage means you can have kobold ancestry but it still doesn't grant you a tail.

This is entirely correct. I hate to say this folks, I really do, but we do expect and modicum of common sense when it comes to the finer points of rules adjudication. If your half-orc has kobold heritage, it does not mean it has a tail and can get the tail slap feat, unless your GM decides (for whatever reason) you have a tail.

So then a Kobold Aasimar is fine, but a human aasimar is not, even though they are mechanically identical?

Please explain this.

A Kobold Aasimar with Tail Terror, according to RAW, is applicable due to the following clauses:

Non-Human Aasimars wrote:
Non-human aasimars have the same statistics as human aasimars with the exception of size...Non-human aasimars do not possess any of the racial abilities of their base race.

From this, I postulate the following:

Kobold Aasimar has the same stats as Human Aasimar. (Barring size.)

Kobold Aasimar does not possess any of the racial abilities of kobolds.

Since having a tail is neither a racial ability nor a statistic, it would allow the Kobold Aasimar to have a tail on character creation. Whereas the Human Aasimar, akin to its mortal cousin, probably does not.

You know what, I'll completely agree with that.

I still think it's a little weird to make the distinction at all based solely on a non-mechanical description, but I'm happy that we've been able to come up with a way to make the character concept work within the rules.

I still want to see a full FAQ for this issue. I'm sure that this isn't the only example of strange ways the rules for Racial Heritage interact. I hope the Dev team rules in favor of more options for characters, rather than less.


Eh, about the only other feat with a case like this I can think of is "long nose form" for RH tengu. You would lack the beak mentioned in the feat so it does nothing for you. To bad, that was another flavorful "micro rage" power.


Ok, now try to do that within RAI :)


Cheapy wrote:
Ok, now try to do that within RAI :)

Hmmm.. as my son would say, "oh! No thank you!" It's a better chassis to build my character off of and it somehow works RAW, going to see how the GM reacts to it. Might make for a good reaction gif for later.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My contention with the Aasimar, since a non-human version is dm approved anyway, is that the Scion of Humanity would change to be the race that the new version "is." Racial Heritage would be redunit in this manner, since they already count as that race anyway and no longer count as human, but of their "race."

Kobold Aasimar counting both as an Outsider (Native) and (Kobold) types and not haveing the Celestrial language, for example.

By Rule As Written, it is DM fiat that one of this nature be allowed in the first place, adjustments would need to be made.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
stuff...

My dear, he was referring to the point that humaniod creatures, such like humans, have two arms, two legs, head, hair, nose, two ears, a mouth and so on...

What is not listed is a tail, poison in the veins (For the example refered to in the title of the thread, wings, and so on...

Statistics are more than just numbers and such.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am not sure about the Long Nose form. The half races already have something that does something similar, and the human is turning into human to disguise the fact that he is human... with a short nose to a form of a human with a Snape nose.

The other things that go with it, that may be worth seeing if one could still take it. I see what you mean, though, it is something to hide a beak with, and humans don't have a beak.... hmmmmm...


Thank you Stephen, not only for stepping in and putting the beast down, but also for upholding the banner of common sense.

'Tis a shame though; you broke the combo. We are at 99 FAQs, just needed one more!

:P

801 to 850 of 1,170 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 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.