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


Rules Questions

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,170 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd love it if they locked this thread at 999 posts...
The rage...
EDIT Dammit!!! There were 994 when I wrote that *sigh*


Charender wrote:
HectorVivis wrote:
Stuff..

Actually the problem is that you cannot be a medium sized kobold. That is what is really wanted. A way to get a tail attack as a medium sized character. -4 strength and small size of kobolds really hurt tham as martial characters.

If there was a Kobold option that let you be medium sized with +2 strength and -2 dexterity over a normal kobold, this whole thread would be unecessary.

There's always the ARG custom race rules... I'm sure something could be worked out. :D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cardinal Chunder wrote:

I'd love it if they locked this thread at 999 posts...

The rage...
EDIT Dammit!!! There were 994 when I wrote that *sigh*

*Nelson laugh* HA HA!

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well it has been interesting debating with you all but my boss just gave me the rest of the day off and I have a game tonight to prepare for. Hope everyone gets some actual playing time in this weekend and aren't stuck at work or something icky like that. Enjoy!


PatientWolf wrote:
Charender wrote:
HectorVivis wrote:
Stuff..
Actually the problem is that you cannot be a medium sized kobold. That is what is really wanted. A way to get a tail attack as a medium sized character. -4 strength and small size of kobolds really hurt tham as martial characters.
Exactly! That is exactly what they are trying to work around!

I dont think that's exactly the case, or what anyone was trying to. It was more a "I want to access tail terror, how can I do it?". Regardless of size mechanic.

A Human could take it, but not use it until they had a tail. A Kobold/Aasimar could take it (making it small), with a houserule of Sion of Kobold, and use it since they have a tail. The adjustments to stats were never a part of the debate. /shrug.

This has, however, been a great brain exercise for all involved that kept it on the actual topic.


Meh, 1000 posts, goodbye my beloved money/dignity!

Quote:
Actually the problem is that you cannot be a medium sized kobold. That is what is really wanted. A way to get a tail attack as a medium sized character

It was more or less for some previous troll-posts about the "cosmetic" part of the description in Blood of Angels, I didn't read all the new messages after that (84, I couldn't believe my eyes after the designer's statement).

Still, I know how you feel, and it's not a surprise the kobold entry in the bestiary is CR 1/4... Like a cat or a normal rat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neonpeekaboo wrote:

Otherwise yeah, we're in complete agreement.

(And now hell freezes over)

The only real disagreement I had was with people taking a handful of vague rules and saying the RAW absolutely says X. We had a rule implying that a tail was necessary and another feat that used a vaguely defined "effects" as a catch all for something specific. To say the RAW was clear and indisputable was a gross overstatement.

I still think you can choose to play a human with a vestigial tail, but RAI has clarified that you need a something functionally similar to a kobold tail to use tail terror. Based on the developer's comments, even a kitsune's fox tail probably wouldn't work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Welp there we go, over 1000 posts of wasted time and corner case argument!

We win nothing unfortunately.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Kryptik wrote:

Wow, this is astonishing.

I had no idea Tail Terror inspired so much passion and enthusiasm.

No, it is just that is is a good example of the RAW vs RAW thing.

Where one version of RAW is "Rules as Wiggled" and the other is "Rules as Written".

The wiggle version interprets lines like "your tail" to grant you a tail and then augment it.

The "real" version requires a tail to be augmented and is sometimes decried as requiring "common sense" which apparently no one has.

The short summary is this happens with lots of other rules, not just this corner case.


PatientWolf wrote:
Torbyne wrote:


But is there an item slot for tails aside from Tail Attachments? i thought the magic item list includes the only 12 legal places to employ magic items? Tail Attachements are a specific execption to that general rule but you cant base other items off one specific execption granted by a feat, yeah?

So even though it kobolds not being able to use their tails without a feat is a single specific case among creatures with tails it is acceptable for you to use that fact to support your argument that tails are just cosmetic but the fact that tail attachments exist indicating the existence of a slot is an unacceptable corner case for my argument that tails are not purely cosmetic. I find it very unconvincing when someone must resort to one logical fallacy after another to try and support their argument.

I actually cant follow what you are saying here... any creature that can use its tail is called out as being able to do so, either in its racial traits for playable species or in its stat block from the bestiary. Things without such an entry, such as a Kobold tail, are generally considered part of the "fluff" of the race until such time as a feat, class ability or other such effect activates a mechanical effect from the fluff.


James Risner wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Wow, this is astonishing.

I had no idea Tail Terror inspired so much passion and enthusiasm.

No, it is just that is is a good example of the RAW vs RAW thing.

Where one version of RAW is "Rules as Wiggled" and the other is "Rules as Written".

The wiggle version interprets lines like "your tail" to grant you a tail and then augment it.

The "real" version requires a tail to be augmented and is sometimes decried as requiring "common sense" which apparently no one has.

The short summary is this happens with lots of other rules, not just this corner case.

To be fair, i never thought tail terror made you grow a tail, i was under a misconception about the effects of Racial Heritage. (Still dont like the ban against any physical manifestations of heritage but the big paladin guy with the sword said this is how its gonna be.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Wow, this is astonishing.

I had no idea Tail Terror inspired so much passion and enthusiasm.

No, it is just that is is a good example of the RAW vs RAW thing.

Where one version of RAW is "Rules as Wiggled" and the other is "Rules as Written".

The wiggle version interprets lines like "your tail" to grant you a tail and then augment it.

The "real" version requires a tail to be augmented and is sometimes decried as requiring "common sense" which apparently no one has.

The short summary is this happens with lots of other rules, not just this corner case.

No, it is the difference between the rules define what you can do vs the rules define what you can't do. Most of the rules arguments boil down to these two mindsets, and insulting those who disagree with you as people who are trying to cheat or be dishonest is not charitable and really has no place on these forums.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

To the "issue" with the Kobold-Aasimar.

The first thing to realize is that it is a GM approval variant of the Aasimar race.

When you are that race, taking a Scion of Humanity racial alternative trait for a race the character looks nothing like should raise a red flag.

As I had suggested before, if one has this variant, taking the Scion trait would likely be a house ruled variant to match the new race of the Aasimar character. (Kobold for this example) This would also make the Racial Heritage feat unneeded as well, going directly into taking the Tail Terror feat, getting the 1d4 tail slap. (With the tail the Kobold-Aasimar would have)

A common Aasimar, just to clarify, would still not have a tail, just as a Human doesn't have a tail.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nick Picking is another way to put the RAW vs. RAW.

I will again put out my faux quote... "Well, of course a human would have a tail... It doesn't say it RIGHT THERE!!!"

Some rules finagling revolves around what the rules don't exactly say, that because there is no where the rules say you "can't" do it. I know a lot out there know exactly what I talk of. This Tail Terror equals Sprouting tails is one of those moments.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There really isn't any "common" Aasimar or Tiefling.

Both can be borne of any humanoid race, and the massive slew of Outsiders, or combinations of Outsiders, they can be descendants of, make their form vary wildly.

From Leonal Agathion, to Lillend Azata, or Gelugon Devil, to Derghodaemon, the physical characteristics inherited, are a vast pools of possibilities.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Charender wrote:
insulting those who disagree with you as people who are trying to cheat or be dishonest is not charitable and really has no place on these forums.

No insult intended and I don't consider it cheating to have a liberal interpretation. I just don't agree that is how the rules should be read (the most liberal way possible.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Only humans produce Aasimar naturally."

The basic write up in the Bestiary and the entry withing the pages of ARG are for the human centric Aasimar.

For a player, to have an Aasimar be of a different race makeup other than human is a variant that is up for GM approval. This is according to the entry I read in the PRD.

I imagine that it is the same for the Tiefling.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

There really isn't any "common" Aasimar or Tiefling.

Both can be borne of any humanoid race, and the massive slew of Outsiders, or combinations of Outsiders, they can be descendants of, make their form vary wildly.

From Leonal Agathion, to Lillend Azata, or Gelugon Devil, to Derghodaemon, the physical characteristics inherited, are a vast pools of possibilities.

So could I take that as a vote for a serpent tailed lillend aasimar? :D


thaX wrote:

To the "issue" with the Kobold-Aasimar.

The first thing to realize is that it is a GM approval variant of the Aasimar race.

When you are that race, taking a Scion of Humanity racial alternative trait for a race the character looks nothing like should raise a red flag.

As I had suggested before, if one has this variant, taking the Scion trait would likely be a house ruled variant to match the new race of the Aasimar character. (Kobold for this example) This would also make the Racial Heritage feat unneeded as well, going directly into taking the Tail Terror feat, getting the 1d4 tail slap. (With the tail the Kobold-Aasimar would have)

A common Aasimar, just to clarify, would still not have a tail, just as a Human doesn't have a tail.

Since the entire discussion of Kobold/Aasimar is campaign specific optional rules decided only by whichever GM is current... I would wholly support a variant feat of Scion of Humanity = Scion of Koboldity. This feat would serve the exact same role as the human centric feat only it would apply to Kobolds instead. Sure it's house rules but it makes perfect sense and the Kobold/Aasimar is non-standard anyway.

I think this is back to what our friendly developer meant when he talked about common sense when making rulings.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
thaX wrote:

"Only humans produce Aasimar naturally."

The basic write up in the Bestiary and the entry withing the pages of ARG are for the human centric Aasimar.

For a player, to have an Aasimar be of a different race makeup other than human is a variant that is up for GM approval. This is according to the entry I read in the PRD.

I imagine that it is the same for the Tiefling.

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels, Page 4:

Blood of Angels wrote:

Non-Human Aasimar

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.

It should be noted that while any creature that breeds with a celestial may give birth to half-celestial offspring, only humanoids can give birth to aasimars. Thus, while it’s possible to encounter a half-celestial dragon, unicorn, or griffon, any children of such creatures would be either half-celestials or normal members of their race. (And just as often, these less conventional half-celestials are sterile.) When discussing half-celestials and aasimars, it’s important to distinguish them from both true celestials (angels, azatas, agathions, etc.) and simple celestial creatures (creatures with the celestial template, which are themselves denizens of the good-aligned Outer Planes but similar in many ways to their Material Plane counterparts). Most aasimars also have a difficult time getting people to grasp distinctions between celestial types, with common folk erroneously grouping all such beings together as “angels.”

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.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels, Page 31:

Random Aasimar Features:
Random Aasimar Features
Presented below are dozens of features Aasimars might
possess. None of the following features grant characters
any special powers in excess of their usual abilities.
d% Feature
1 Arms: appear sculpted from marble
2 Arms: extra long
3 Arms: feathered forearms
4 Arms: scaled forearms
5 Arms: seemingly boneless
6 Build: always slender
7 Build: beautifully proportioned
8 Build: graceful
9 Build: unusually light
10 Build: well-muscled
11 Digits: extra long
12 Digits: metallic nails
13 Digits: odd number
14 Digits: shining talons
15 Digits: unusually colored nails
16 Ears: catlike
17 Ears: feathered
18 Ears: long-lobed
19 Ears: pivoting
20 Ears: pointed
21 Eyes: catlike
22 Eyes: glowing
23 Eyes: iridescent
24 Eyes: jewel-like
25 Eyes: multicolored
26 Face: baby-faced
27 Face: metallic lips
28 Face: perfectly symmetrical
29 Face: unearthly beauty
30 Face: white scar
31 Hair: animated
32 Hair: feathers
33 Hair: heatless flames
34 Hair: metallic
35 Hair: turns silver in moonlight
36 Hands: always cool and dry
37 Hands: blackened knuckles
38 Hands: glowing palms
39 Hands: leave contrails
40 Hands: fingerprints look like holy symbols
41 Head: animal features
42 Head: bald
43 Head: draconic features
44 Head: halo
45 Head: unusually shaped
46 Legs: clawed feet
47 Legs: extra long
48 Legs: feathered shins
49 Legs: metallic scaled shins
50 Legs: unnaturally small feet
51 Shadow: animated
52 Shadow: bright
53 Shadow: metallic
54 Shadow: prismatic
55 Shadow: winged
56 Skin: ashen
57 Skin: feathered
58 Skin: furred
59 Skin: glittering
60 Skin: glowing
61 Skin: iridescent
62 Skin: metallic scales
63 Skin: metallic sheen
64 Skin: prismatic scales
65 Skin: unusual hue
66 Voice: echoes dramatically
67 Voice: musical
68 Voice: unusually high
69 Voice: unusually low
70 Voice: words you speak aloud seem to be heard mentally
71 Wings: butterfly
72 Wings: feathered
73 Wings: light
74 Wings: metallic dragon
75 Wings: prismatic
76 Other: always look clean
77 Other: always well lit
78 Other: androgynous
79 Other: breathing sounds like ocean waves
80 Other: clothing billows even without wind
81 Other: covered in freckles
82 Other: don't sweat
83 Other: floral breath
84 Other: fox tail
85 Other: melodic laugh
86 Other: multicolored tears
87 Other: nearby bells ring when you pass by
88 Other: no body hair
89 Other: pearlescent teeth
90 Other: random choral sounds surround you
91 Other: sacred birthmark
92 Other: stigmata
93 Other: sweet scent
94 Other: sweet taste
95 Other: trance-like sleep
96 Other: unicorn horn
97 Other: unusual footprints
98 Other: unusual temperature
99 Roll twice, ignore any result of 99 or higher.
100 Roll three times, ignore any result of 99 or higher.

Please note, there is no line anywhere about GM approval for these optional physical characteristics.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels, Page 31:

Please note, there is no line anywhere about GM approval for these optional physical characteristics.

Also note that an aasamar with any of these distinctly non-human characteristics could still take Scion of Humanity.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels, Page 31:

Please note, there is no line anywhere about GM approval for these optional physical characteristics.

Also note that an aasamar with any of these distinctly non-human characteristics could still take Scion of Humanity.

This is absolutely true.

Also, Blood of Angels came after the Bestiary.


Also, those features are to represent your outsider heritage, not your mortal heritage. So a normal Human-stock Aasimar with cat-ears isn't associated with catfolk but an Outsider with cat-like features (likely a CG from Elysium).

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Kazaan wrote:
Also, those features are to represent your outsider heritage, not your mortal heritage. So a normal Human-stock Aasimar with cat-ears isn't associated with catfolk but an Outsider with cat-like features (likely a CG from Elysium).

How does that matter?

I am only stating what features being an Aasimar can grant you.

This box-cutter totally human looking Aasimar, with no real variance from Aasimar to Aasimar idea is absurd.

There is no such restriction.

It is as absurd as stating all humans are 6 feet tall, with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My point is that the variant Aasimar is a side bar within the pages, going into rules that adjust the regular assumptions of the race as presented in the other entries and even in the same source as the quote. There is also a phrase somewhere within about GM Approval.

I also seen the random features on the inside cover of the book. Nice that one out of the one hundred possibilities is a fox tail. A GM could rule to let the player choose to have a fox tail rather then try to roll for it.

When the tail is there, it is possible to use this combo (Racial Heritage plus Kobold Terror) to get the tail slap. The overall question, in the past 1000 posts, was concerning a Half Orc character. We refered to the Human later in the life of this wonder discussion mostly because the poor Half Orc was lost in the winds and this actually concerned the Human half of his dual heritage. "Can I take these two feats in this way, and would I be able to use the latter?" The answer, as noted, is Yes and No. Yes, the two feats can be taken in that order. No, you can not use Tail Terror as a Half Orc because the race does not have a tail.

Now going to the variant Aasimar using rules from a book that is full of optional choices for the race, we come to a question "How can we still make this happen?"

By going to your GM and asking him "Can I play an Aasimar? Can he be this Variant? How would this change the human centric alternative racial traits? Can I get a Fox Tail without having to roll for it?"

Or just ask to play a Kobold.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

The Deformed trait works as well.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
Kryptik wrote:

Wow, this is astonishing.

I had no idea Tail Terror inspired so much passion and enthusiasm.

No, it is just that is is a good example of the RAW vs RAW thing.

Where one version of RAW is "Rules as Wiggled" and the other is "Rules as Written".

The wiggle version interprets lines like "your tail" to grant you a tail and then augment it.

The "real" version requires a tail to be augmented and is sometimes decried as requiring "common sense" which apparently no one has.

The short summary is this happens with lots of other rules, not just this corner case.

Not really, our helpful developer allowed that having a Tail according to the Heritage Trait was a 'stretch' and that people should use 'common sense'. Unfortunately until FAQ'd the tail is technically still allowed even thought not clearly not RAI.

As for whole corner case idea... well that's rubbish... there are plenty of choices of adding racial changes to a PC, plenty of those choices are far more optimal than the idea of buying a tail attachment to attack twice around.

This is one feat/trait combination that flamed up over something that any home GM could house-rule, and any PFS GM might possibly see once a year (if that)...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ lastblackknight

I bet you this guy is totally a Humanoid (Human). There's no doubt about it at all. Sure, he has a 2D10 Bite Attack, a 1D10 Gore Attack, and 2 1D12 Claw Attacks, and is the size of a freaking house, but since he originally had the Humanoid (Human) [sub]type, it's totally allowed, even if it goes as a "stretch" against "common sense"!

Yeah, no. What he means is that the general RAI trumps any sort of misguided RAW you may try to warp on, period. You try and pull that garbage in PFS, and you're going to have a GM who's going to break his chair from laughing at the idea too hard, or a GM who's going to stare weirdly at you every game session, wondering what ticks in that brain of yours, and if he's going to have to snuff out the munchkinism for good.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I love the Violator!

I used to have the first three Spawn comics signed by Todd McFarlane.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

What he (Stephen) said and clarified is that the feat does nothing for a human because a human doesn't have a tail and the feats in question are not enough to have said human sprout one.

As has been mentioned with various examples over and over again by me and other posters for those few that still believe tails should be given away like candy.

I am not sure why being a "stretch" is so easily discounted by you while going into houserules about character discriptions.

No tail. No tail slap. The character should prolly get a different feat or have some way to gain a tail.


James Risner wrote:
Charender wrote:
insulting those who disagree with you as people who are trying to cheat or be dishonest is not charitable and really has no place on these forums.
No insult intended and I don't consider it cheating to have a liberal interpretation. I just don't agree that is how the rules should be read (the most liberal way possible.)

Likewise the most strict or literal reading of the rules causes more than a few problems as well. Both of the extremes are wrong, so we are left trying to decide if we are being too liberal or not liberal enough.

Saying that those who disagree with you are "wriggling" the rules implies they are intentionally try to subvert the rules(IE cheat or munchkin).


thaX wrote:

What he (Stephen) said and clarified is that the feat does nothing for a human because a human doesn't have a tail and the feats in question are not enough to have said human sprout one.

As has been mentioned with various examples over and over again by me and other posters for those few that still believe tails should be given away like candy.

I am not sure why being a "stretch" is so easily discounted by you while going into houserules about character discriptions.

No tail. No tail slap. The character should prolly get a different feat or have some way to gain a tail.

Actually the line he clarified was my quote "A human either doesn't have a tail or the tail a human could have doesn't meet the requirements for the feat". He stated this is true, but never qualified which part(s) of the compound statement was true.

So either human's can't have tails, you need something functionally similar to a Kobold tail, or both. Since the RAW gives players pretty large leeway in character appearance, the whole "human's can't have tails" thing seems arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive, I am leaning toward an RAI that you have to have something similar to a kobold tail for tail terror to work.

TLDR: Not just any tail will work.

Shadow Lodge

Charender wrote:

Since the RAW gives players pretty large leeway in character appearance, the whole "human's can't have tails" thing seems arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive, I am leaning toward an RAI that you have to have something similar to a kobold tail for tail terror to work.

TLDR: Not just any tail will work.

Stephen Radney-MacFarland Designer wrote:
If you are a human, who takes the Racial Heritage, you can take the feat, but it does not grant you anything if you don't have a tail. Humans do not have tails, ergo, your tail is nonexistent and can't be augment. In other words it is foolish to take the feat expecting it allows you to grow a tail. Neither feat says you grow a tail.


Just thought I'd jump in here now that there have been 1000 posts... has this been resolved in any way? Or is it just endless back-and-forth?

Shadow Lodge

Tyler Beck wrote:
Just thought I'd jump in here now that there have been 1000 posts... has this been resolved in any way? Or is it just endless back-and-forth?

One of the devs, Stephen Radney-Macfarland, settled it. Per the quote above Humans don't have tails, can take the feat but can't use it unless they get a tail somehow, i.e. through a feat, magic, or GM fiat.

There was the whole Kobold/Aasimar debate fiasco following that ruling but it is Monday and I really don't feel like getting back into all of that.


PatientWolf wrote:
Tyler Beck wrote:
Just thought I'd jump in here now that there have been 1000 posts... has this been resolved in any way? Or is it just endless back-and-forth?

One of the devs, Stephen Radney-Macfarland, settled it. Per the quote above Humans don't have tails, can take the feat but can't use it unless they get a tail somehow, i.e. through a feat, magic, or GM fiat.

There was the whole Kobold/Aasimar debate fiasco following that ruling but it is Monday and I really don't feel like getting back into all of that.

Thanks for being PATIENT and laying it out for me. :-D

See what I did there?

LOL


there is the kobold-Aasimar concern... and the serpentine Lillend-Aasimar as well; if you can't attack the human side of it, go for the outsider aspect ;) or just be racial heritage half orc and settle for five natural attacks as is. If i had to play the character now that is the route i'd go.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

lastblacknight wrote:
our helpful developer allowed that having a Tail according to the Heritage Trait was a 'stretch' and that people should use 'common sense'. Unfortunately until FAQ'd the tail is technically still allowed even thought not clearly not RAI.

You read what the dev said and got "So it works RAW but should not RAI" and I read "Clearly not RAW".

Sigh, we are doomed.

Charender wrote:
Saying that those who disagree with you are "wriggling" the rules implies they are intentionally try to subvert the rules(IE cheat or munchkin).

It is wriggling to read a rule like this and say "it doesn't say it grants me a tail, but I'm going to assume it does because it doesn't say it doesn't."

None of that is cheating, but may be munchkinin depending on your interpretation. No subversion of the rules required either. Just reading them in the extreme liberal stance.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I was always in agreement that the Racial Heritage feat, or Tail Terror feat itself didn't grant you a tail.

I will be damned though if some one is going to tell me that it is somehow impossible for an Aasimar to have a tail.


I don't know if the original aasimars can have tails, but if you're an aasimar you need to take Scion of humanity to take tail terror, and scion of humanity specify you're near totally human-like... So you don't have a tail (you can't pass for a human with a functioning tail you plan attack with).

So why bother anymore honestly ?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You can be an Agathion-Blooded Aasimar, noted as possessing bestial qualities such as dragon scales, fish scales, fur, manes, or talons, along with slit pupils, pronounced canines, and furry ears, and also have the Scion of Humanity trait.

Straight up. No argument. PFS legal.

Right out of the base description.

No "blonde haired, blue eyed, pale skinned human, with no variation" attached to the optional restriction attached to the Scion of Humanity trait.

Aasimar are extremely varied, and everything, about every single description, and option, supports that.

Aasimar are not all angelic super Aryan clones.


Never said you can't be a monster-like aasimar.

Quote:
Scion of Humanity: Some aasimars' heavenly ancestry is extremely distant. An aasimar with this racial trait counts as an outsider (native) and a humanoid (human) for any effect related to race, including feat prerequisites and spells that affect humanoids. She can pass for human without using the Disguise skill. This racial trait replaces the Celestial language and alters the native subtype.

I just want to remind you that scion of humanity states you're nearly human. You can't (edit: shouldn't) be monster-like and stuff with that.

The problem with Blood of Angels:
-Companion
-Written before Advanced Race Guide

Paizo designers for ARG didn't take Blood of Angels into consideration while making Scion of humanity, sticking to the Core rulebooks and the campaign setting stuff. We see that when you think a kobold aasimar, which have nothing to do with the original aasimar which is half-human, can take scion of humanity (and must do it if they want to take kobold feats).

If I'm your GM and you told me "I got a kobold-like tail, and I take Scion of Humanity", my common sense must stop you. How do you even blend in a human crowd with that freackin' tail ? Nah.

But I'll concur that, by rules, you can be a monstrous aasimar and still not need a disguise check to pass for a human. And that's silly as Hell. Part of why I don't like to go outside core.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

You are a restrictive DM, with your own houserules, that curt creativity.

That's fine.

Luckily, none of my DMs require a stepford wives level of lack of uniqueness amongst the defined physical characteristics of PCs.


Yeah, I'm beginning to wish I hadn't popped into this thread. Way too much hostility here... you're killing my RPG Superstar buzz.

BBT, can I make a quick suggestion? Try to type things in a less definitive manner when you're talking about another specific poster on the forums. It sounds like you're reprimanding the other person, as opposed to being helpful.

With that, I'm bowing out of this one. Good luck, guys!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

@Tyler Beck:

I will make responses to specific posters more obvious. I apologize.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

2 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:
You are a restrictive DM, with your own houserules, that curt creativity.

Tomato / Tomato

What you call house rule I call Rules as Written.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are a restrictive DM, with your own houserules, that curt creativity.

That's fine.

Luckily, none of my DMs require a stepford wives level of lack of uniqueness amongst the defined physical characteristics of PCs.

Bbt this is where we disagree, we have been told to apply common sense to the rules. How can you have scales or furry ears or a tail and yet still pass for human better than standard assaimar x with the bestiary features.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
You are a restrictive DM, with your own houserules, that curt creativity.

Tomato / Tomato

What you call house rule I call Rules as Written.

That actually was not directed at you, but your response is nonetheless troubling.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Talonhawke wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

You are a restrictive DM, with your own houserules, that curt creativity.

That's fine.

Luckily, none of my DMs require a stepford wives level of lack of uniqueness amongst the defined physical characteristics of PCs.

Bbt this is where we disagree, we have been told to apply common sense to the rules. How can you have scales or furry ears or a tail and yet still pass for human better than standard assaimar x with the bestiary features.

You can be a straight Human, with a third eye, and other monstrous deformities, without any doubt that you are human.

You also won't suffer any Disguise penalties, when disguising yourself as another Human.

It's give and take.

1,001 to 1,050 of 1,170 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 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.