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


Rules Questions

1,101 to 1,150 of 1,170 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Charender wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


Charander wrote:


Even though I ultimately disagree with him, he does have a point, and is not distorting things nearly to the degree you imply.
Yes. He is.

She can pass for human without using the Disguise skill.

Clearly, objectively, an unequivocally says its changing your appearance.

and by strict RAW, a level 15 human draconic sorcerer also automatically passes any disguise check to appear human despite possessing dragon claws and wings.

el cuervo wrote:
EDIT: Charender, did you just, very subtly, apply Godwin's Law? :D
I have no idea what you are talking about... :P

Honestly, I'm surprised it took 1,096 posts to get there. ;)


blackbloodtroll wrote:

Yep.

All of mass amounts of information you provided, noting how it restricts all that you say it does, is written in there.

But maybe, it just says:

Advanced Race Guide wrote:
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.

Huh.

Doesn't seem to say a thing about appearance, or that it differs from any other Aasimar.

What about this part? Extremely distant ancestry...

Racial Heritage (Kobold) gives you distant Kobold ancestry but no tail. Why would distant celestial ancestry give you a tail?


Oh good lord why is this still going on. Time to clean clocks...

Doomed Hero wrote:

It's worth noting that a Human can have clawsclaw attacks, hornsgore attacks, and a bite attack (see: rage powers) and they don't need to make disguise checks to prove their human.

With feats (like racial heritage) they can even have wings, metal skin, and a halo, and they still don't need to make disguise checks, even under a full strip-search pat down.

If an actual human is still human-looking in spite of inhuman features, then so is an aasamar with scion of humanity.

You can explain it in-game however you like. Mechanically, it's pretty clear.

I crossed out a couple things that are completely different subject matter, and replaced them with the examples you meant to list.

In regards to your Rage Powers argument, don't forget, that's all the Rage Power does; gives Natural Attacks. There are no lines that impply the alteration of the character's appearance, so saying that it changes appearance is a fallacy.

Humans can have Claw Attacks and Bite Attacks, because they have Hands and a Jaw to make these attacks with, respectively. The attacks themselves are abstract of the types of limbs that are on the creature (long claws, flat-head teeth, etc.), the only thing is that they require a common sense of applicable limbs to carry out the attacks with. That's it. You can't make a Tail Attack with a Spine (or more mechanically accurate, a Torso).

Saying Horns, a limb on a creature, is the same thing as a Natural Attack Action being taken in combat, is contradictory and silly in itself. Limbs themselves do not grant attacks; they grant the ability to perform natural attacks granted to the creature, but they are not natural attacks in and of themselves (unless they come out and say that they are). You make Gore Attacks with Horns (or Horn-like Limbs), but "Horns" are a limb, not an attack.

Making Natural Attacks does not cause a person to change their morphology. The possession of limbs does that. Refer to my post @ lastblackknight regarding how the Violator can have all of those ridiculous limbs (and powerful attacks due to being a house-sized creature), but can apparently be considered Humanoid (Human), no questions asked.

In addition, there are other means to determine whether somebody in-game is a Human or not, and it's not limited to Disguise; Knowledge checks of comprehending and/or dealing with such phenomenon before would also show whether or not so and so is really a Human, or something else. It's not out of line for an NPC to do an opposed Knowledge/Perception/Sense Motive check towards your Disguise check to see through your clever ruses.

@BBT: I have and have not disagreed with Aasimar having a tail. It's not like it's out of the question for such an extraplanar being to have limbs from the norm. However, it shares the same concept with Real Life humans; the possibility is quite rare to say the least, and is not even fool-proof when it does occur.

At the same time, you seem to refute the arguments without providing much for your own other than ridiculous examples that don't properly compare. Facial Hair is not the same as a limb, both natural and artificial. As I've said before, Rogaine and other hair products are much cheaper than stem cells and prosthetics, and are much easier to obtain, create, and apply in a proper manner. The comparison is nowhere near identical or even relevant, and claiming such is validity is a foolish endeavor.

Passing for a race [,or to be more mechanically accurate, a (sub)type,] isn't really defined other than at best having the (sub)type on the creature in question. Anything else is subject to change due to abilities and the such altering the appearance of the otherwise listed (sub)type, and anything adding or subtracting that (sub)type isn't factored in to passing for a race/(sub)type. By RAW.

Though, there's this guy, the Violator's distinguished evil twin brother. He's got the limbs of a Human, and then some, so he's a Human, right? By RAW, the (sub)type is really the only requirement to automatically pass for something (or an ability that says you do), so yes, he's Human. Due to a poorly defined method to actually be viewed as that sub(type) to other objective in-game characters/creatures.

What would other people in-game see him as? Some void aberration bent on consuming the Earth and all of its inhabitants. But is he still human? Sure, the (sub)type is there, and that's all that matters, right?

Too bad common sense and reasonable judgement would disagree. If I were a bartender and I saw a stranger with the face of, say,a Predator, I'd hesitate to call them human to say the least, if not disregard it entirely. I'd find the closest gun in my vicinity and blow its brains out. It's a good thing they can cover their true visage quite well with the proper equipment for a good Disguise, so I don't see them as some alien who's killing or abducting my customers.


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

As the developer stated common sense trumps RAW combos.

If you are trying to look like a human yet wander around with wings, tails, claws, and monstrous teeth then you automatically fail any disguise attempt. At least you do in my game... but then I use common sense.

...And that's fine, but your version of 'common sense' is likely different from the next persons, hence the 1,106 posts so far.

As a GM I have to be flexible and see both peoples opinions and the only flexibility I have as a PFSOP GM is RAW and the FAQ. What a dev says in the threads gives me insight and allows me to refine my own perception. But I can only act within the guidelines of organised play. Now the feat/trait combination stands as RAW, but this not as intended or as understood by the Dev he called it a 'stretch' which means some people may try to squeeze through the gap left in the edge-case.

I don't see the issue of a tail, or any of the other racial traits here. If someone has inherited metal skin from their parents; I can work with that as a GM (and an adult) I can deal with this and integrate it into a great table experience for all. (There are real in-game consequences for having a tail, or metal skin, or wings for that matter...)

I am not commenting on the legality of theses combinations for organised play. I haven't checked the Additional Resources to see if it's even allowed and I certainly don't have the vision of the Dev's (but we sure are entertaining them..)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If an observer were to try to make a perception check to tell what race a Scion Aasimar was, he'd register as Human (disregarding non-Human Aasimar atm). It won't hide any wings, claws, or other distinctly non-Human features; what it's hiding is the fact that you're an Outsider. By contrast, looking at a non-Scion Aasimar, they look distinctly non-Human and they'd actually have to make a Disguise check to appear Human. Sure, it could be aided by magic, but the thing being disguised is the Outsider type, not specifically the wings, halo, tail, etc. So our observer will know you're not a "normal" Human, but in a world filled with various magic, he'll probably rationalize it in some manner and think you're using bloodline or rage powers or some kind of magic, whatever. If you want to hide the actual Wings on your back to make people think you don't have Wings, that will take a disguise check and physically removing the disguise will obviously reveal the wings unless magic is involved, in which case you'd need to magically remove the disguise.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:


Doesn't seem to say a thing about appearance, or that it differs from any other Aasimar.

You are entitled to your own opinions in your quest for cheese, this is obviously, blatantly, baldly, disingenuously, and shamelessly making up your own facts.

That is an outright personal attack. You seem to think that the main goal is to gain some mechanical advantage, by skewing the rules.

I am making the stance, that even if the Racial Heritage/Tail Terror combo is not valid for Aasimar, that I still say an Aasimar can have a tail, and the Scion of Humanity trait.

Even if the ability to not need a Disguise check were somehow removed, I would make the same stance.

Others, like yourself, are still adamant about creating a restriction, that is not written.

I still believe this stance is influenced by the Racial Heritage/Tail Terror combo.

Imagine the Racial Heritage feat did not exist.

Now, would throw such a fit about it?


Kazaan wrote:
If an observer were to try to make a perception check to tell what race a Scion Aasimar was, he'd register as Human (disregarding non-Human Aasimar atm). It won't hide any wings, claws, or other distinctly non-Human features; what it's hiding is the fact that you're an Outsider. By contrast, looking at a non-Scion Aasimar, they look distinctly non-Human and they'd actually have to make a Disguise check to appear Human. Sure, it could be aided by magic, but the thing being disguised is the Outsider type, not specifically the wings, halo, tail, etc. So our observer will know you're not a "normal" Human, but in a world filled with various magic, he'll probably rationalize it in some manner and think you're using bloodline or rage powers or some kind of magic, whatever. If you want to hide the actual Wings on your back to make people think you don't have Wings, that will take a disguise check and physically removing the disguise will obviously reveal the wings unless magic is involved, in which case you'd need to magically remove the disguise.

This I can agree with 100%. And bbt if this is what your meaning then I'm sorry I missed your point.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sigh.

Really.

Ok. First thing is...

The variant Aasimar is a DM approval change from the Bestiary/ARG entry. Something that has to be kept in mind is that everything concerned with the Aasimar outside of the Variant rules is human centric. Meaning, as mentioned in the very blurb shown to me, that most Aasimar are born from a human family.

... ok.

Second thing...

Scion of Humanity is a racial/race ability trade out trait (Meaning it replaces another aspect of the race itself, not a "trait" to be taken) that assumes that the Aasimar is the human centric one like that of the Bestiary/ARG entry.

So, common sense tells us that adjustments would need to be made for this DM approval variant. One such adjustment is for the Scion ability to be altered to the race that the variant is instead of the human quality that they no longer are.

So, what is RAW?

By the strict adherence of the written rules, none of the ARG ability swap traits can be taken by the variants, as they no longer have the human qualities that they are centered on. (It says so, right there.)

prd 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.

The statistics are the same as it is still an Aasimar, but the last part clarifies that the variant looks like the race the player has chosen to emulate. Above in the first part, it is even said that they are indistinguishable from another of their (presumed) race.

The taking of the feats would, in my reading, a DM call.

So, the last thing is that the original question was about a Half Orc and whether or not the damage would scale up with the character being Medium instead of Small. I believe, if a Half Orc had a tail, that it would, just like if a Kobold had been enlarged.

Now it has come to talking about Aasimar's racial divides.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

It may seem as though I have a bit of an emotional investment in this particular aspect. Admittedly, I do.

I am an artist. I love the part of character creation where I get to draw my PC, and flesh it out. I even do portraits for some of my fellow players.

This is one of the reasons I love the Aasimar and Tiefling, as their fantastical physical characteristics are so varied.

From the Tiefling's exoskeleton and tentacle-like arms, to the Aasimar's fish scale and fox tails, the possibilities a wondrously vast.

When someone would curt my creativity, with unwritten restrictions, and falsely label it as "common sense", I am infuriated.

Even more vomit inducing in it foul pretentiousness, is the bile spit forth, with accusations of "cheese"(hate that term generally) and munckining.

So, I will stand firm on my position, unwavering, as I feel this is not the game for those who scoff at creativity, and mock one's imagination.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:

Even more vomit inducing in it foul pretentiousness, is the bile spit forth, with accusations of "cheese"(hate that term generally) and munckining.

Two feats for a 1d6 tail slap doesn't even register on my munchkin radar.

I don't even know what cheese means. I'm not really sure anyone does. It's use is never consistent. It mostly seems to be thrown around in context of "this thing I don't like."


blackbloodtroll wrote:
So, I will stand firm on my position, unwavering, as I feel this is not the game for those who scoff at creativity, and mock one's imagination.

And so you shall. But professing your position as the RAW and RAI, and being met with opposition is something to be expected, and given the duration of this already expansive discussion, it's no surprise that the frustration caused previously will increase to levels of anger.

It's not like this thread was ever about people not doing whatever they want for their home games. I've said profusely that in home games, the RAW is about as flexible as you want it to be. But the discussion isn't about houseruling or how to make a concept seem fun.

It's about the book, what it's meant to allow and what can be allowed. The definitions of RAI and RAW respectively. Nothing else in the discussion matters. Is it insensitive and abstract? Yes, but so are the rules in the book. As we must become the book to fully understand it, so too must we take its qualities, both good and bad. That's the reason why we can't have personal feelings about it. Because those are irrelevant to the book in both the RAI and RAW.

@ Doomed Hero:

I've never used the term "cheese." It's only bad for you if you're lactose intolerant, and is actually quite contradictory, just as contradictory as chickens really being a symbol of cowardice. Munchkins, on the other hand, is most likely derived from the game designed purposefully to screw other people over and circumvent the rules any which way you can get away with.

That's the definition of Munchkin I'm going with, and it's the one I've been using the whole time; a person who purposefully screws other people over and circumvents the rules set any which way he can get away with. (Ironically enough, that's exactly how Chaotic Evils are supposed to operate. Time to nickname it, but should it be Chaotic Munchkin, Munchkin Evil, or Munchkin Stupid? You decide!)

To what end or to what level is irrelevant, since Munchkins range in all sorts of ways, and denying it just because it's such a little amount of snaking by is like saying a CR 1 Goblin Fighter with an Evil Alignment is not really Evil, but a CR 20 Balor with an Evil Alignment is. The degree of Evil doesn't matter, if they fall under the category, they're a part of it, period.


I wasn't referring to you, Darksol. Big Norse Wolf who brought the term into the discussion.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You are entitled to your own opinions in your quest for cheese...

As for Munchkin, I love the game. I think it was derived from the slur though, and not the other way around. That term has been in use for a pretty long time.


Regardless of what people are saying here (and I just skipped over 1,000 posts to get here), I have discovered that a human with racial heritage (kobold) can take Draconic Aspect, Draconic Glide, and Draconic Paragon and obtain a Fly Speed by RAW.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I doubt there is anything that anyone can do with the Racial Heritage feat, that won't cause someone to expel blood from their bowels, and have their eyes erupt from their skulls as the deep shriek of sheer fury bellow from the contorted cavern of their mouth.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Regardless of what people are saying here (and I just skipped over 1,000 posts to get here), I have discovered that a human with racial heritage (kobold) can take Draconic Aspect, Draconic Glide, and Draconic Paragon and obtain a Fly Speed by RAW.

Absolutely.

Having a tail though, that's just ridiculous.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

master_marshmallow wrote:
Regardless of what people are saying here (and I just skipped over 1,000 posts to get here), I have discovered that a human with racial heritage (kobold) can take Draconic Aspect, Draconic Glide, and Draconic Paragon and obtain a Fly Speed by RAW.

Draconic Aspect = You don't have scales, so no op.

Draconic Glide = You grow wings, but while RAW isn't RAI. Expect table variance.
Draconic Paragon = You don't have a breath weapon, so no op.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:


That is an outright personal attack. You seem to think that the main goal is to gain some mechanical advantage, by skewing the rules.

That is your M.O.

Quote:
Others, like yourself, are still adamant about creating a restriction, that is not written.

Mostly because of the faulty logic you're basing your case on in the quest for mechanical advantage- namely "it doesn't say I can't therefore I can". It never SAYS humans don't have 6 arms so it doesn't say I can't play Vishnu the sextuple falchion wielding fighter.

There is no space to write every assumption into the game. Its not going to happen, it hasn't happened, you can't selectively read the rules as if thats how they were written. The game assumes you can make a dc -5 knowledge local check to know what a human is.

Quote:
Now, would throw such a fit about it?

I haven't looked into the combo. Calling you out on your argument is a result of the blatant dichotomy between your conclusion and the information that was right in front of you that refuted that conclusion.

Having a gnome adopted by orcs and then apparently taken to the dentist for caps so he has a bite attack like all the other kids (and technically a full on 1d4 bite attack at that since there's no provision for a small character) is facepalm worthy but it works raw. This does not.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Regardless of what people are saying here (and I just skipped over 1,000 posts to get here), I have discovered that a human with racial heritage (kobold) can take Draconic Aspect, Draconic Glide, and Draconic Paragon and obtain a Fly Speed by RAW.

And that works because its specifically

Get dragony
Grow wings
use wings.
Get extra dragony.


Doomed Hero wrote:
I wasn't referring to you, Darksol. Big Norse Wolf who brought the term into the discussion.

And I'm sure you weren't, though it doesn't change my expression towards you and your statements regarding his speech, especially considering such terminology was brought in long before this discussion got to where it is now, and before he started calling it "cheese," (which, as I've said, is a silly term to use).


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Aranna wrote:

As the developer stated common sense trumps RAW combos.

If you are trying to look like a human yet wander around with wings, tails, claws, and monstrous teeth then you automatically fail any disguise attempt. At least you do in my game... but then I use common sense.

If a horned, tailed, scaly demon thing can make a disguise check without the use of magic to appear human, why couldn't a PC with similar attributes do the same? To outright deny it altogether is to not allow your players to follow the rules as written OR as intended.

It's one thing to apply a circumstance penalty (say, equal to that of being a different race even though he is still, technically, human), but quite another to say "nope, you fail automatically for no better reason than I said so."

Common sense? More like a jerk move.


Quote:

If a horned, tailed, scaly demon thing can make a disguise check without the use of magic to appear human, why couldn't a PC with similar attributes do the same?

It's one thing to apply a circumstance penalty (say, equal to that of being a different race even though he is still, technically, human), but quite another to say "nope, you fail automatically for no better reason than I said so."

What a jerk move that would be!

My opinion isn't that such an aasimar is incapable if disguise checks. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that with Scion of Humanity, the character is indistinguishable from a regular human - as a baseline. You are entitled to your claws, dragon wings, and scales if your abilities provide them. The DC to hide them is a certain level of difficulty, but there would be no penalty to pass the final result as a human, instead of a normal-looking man who is clearly still not human (an aasimar).

What this means, though, is that you lack license to invent a tail for your character unless you possess an ability that grants one. Some aasimar may have tails, but prior to your character's training in their profession, through their entire childhood, they were indistinguishable from human (remember, Scion is a racial trait, not a Trait or Feat). That they add irregularities later doesn't change that. Humans do not have tails, so you lack one unless your class abilities/feats/items add one. Racial Heritage and Tail Terror don't.


Ravingdork wrote:
Aranna wrote:

As the developer stated common sense trumps RAW combos.

If you are trying to look like a human yet wander around with wings, tails, claws, and monstrous teeth then you automatically fail any disguise attempt. At least you do in my game... but then I use common sense.

If a horned, tailed, scaly demon thing can make a disguise check without the use of magic to appear human, why couldn't a PC with similar attributes do the same? To outright deny it altogether is to not allow your players to follow the rules as written OR as intended.

It's one thing to apply a circumstance penalty (say, equal to that of being a different race even though he is still, technically, human), but quite another to say "nope, you fail automatically for no better reason than I said so."

Common sense? More like a jerk move.

We aren't saying they can't make a check. We aren't saying they automatically fail any check they make. The argument being made is that because an Aasimar can have the morphology of somebody non-Human that they can still have that morphology and have no problems with the regular joes of a town calling them Human. By RAW, on the face, they're correct. By RAI, in an NPC world, there are many factors that disagree.

Yes, Disguise is used to hide the morphology and appearance of what it actually is, but it doesn't change (sub)type, and it doesn't change the personal opinions of others. Trying to disguise yourself when others are around is going to make others suspicious. (Makes me question if the True Sight spell would negate any sort of Disguise check, but that's for another thread.)

Let's take a Horned, Tailed, Scaly Demon in comparison to a Horned, Tailed, Scaly Human. Does the former look less human than the latter? Definitely. But are the NPC's of the gaming world going to look at the latter and not presume it to be the former? Depending upon the PC (some 18th level Wizard to some level 2 Commoner), there will at the very least be mixed emotions on the matter, if not contradiction.

There's also the factor that you're trying to Disguise something that's extremely difficult to do by normal means. There's a fine line between hiding scars on your body with clothing and hiding a 5 ton dragon in the room with an Alter Self spell.

It is as I've said before; if I'm some bartender and I see somebody who has the face of an unmasked Predator in the room, I'm going to freak out and grab the nearest firearm and blow its brains out. The same logic applies to somebody who has the visage of a demon, and hiding such defining features (protruding horns, wings, and tail) is difficult, if not outright impossible (by normal means) without risk of detection or seeing through it.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

It may seem as though I have a bit of an emotional investment in this particular aspect. Admittedly, I do.

I am an artist. I love the part of character creation where I get to draw my PC, and flesh it out. I even do portraits for some of my fellow players.

This is one of the reasons I love the Aasimar and Tiefling, as their fantastical physical characteristics are so varied.

From the Tiefling's exoskeleton and tentacle-like arms, to the Aasimar's fish scale and fox tails, the possibilities a wondrously vast.

When someone would curt my creativity, with unwritten restrictions, and falsely label it as "common sense", I am infuriated.

Even more vomit inducing in it foul pretentiousness, is the bile spit forth, with accusations of "cheese"(hate that term generally) and munckining.

So, I will stand firm on my position, unwavering, as I feel this is not the game for those who scoff at creativity, and mock one's imagination.

There is actually a decent article that was written awhile back that basically states the thesis that Restrictions breed creativity. Go ahead and google it, it should be easy to find.

Also (and this is directed to no one in particular) I've been following this thread. It's been a bit of a train wreck - disastrous but hard to look away.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
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.

Yes, you can take the feat, but it does no good, unless you have a tail. If you are human (no tail) and take the feat, there are ways in which you could gain a tail (including GM fiat) get a tail, hence it is not part of the prerequisites.

As a matter of design principle, I'm not sympathetic to making rules always as air-tight as you suggest. While the game may not seem to act like it sometimes, the rule of Pathfinder are not a strict code. Rather it is a matrix using our natural language with some game jargon to create a narrative, relative ease of play, and enough space to deal with complicate circumstance; a narrative, adjudicated and can be played with by a GM both to tell her tale and to create fun.

Logic will eventually have to suffice. If the feat allows you to do something with your tail, and you have no tail, the assumption that it grants you a tail is stretching. At the same time any home GM can easily come in and say that you have a tail, if it fits your character concept and her story.

As some of you have pointed out, PFS has to take a harder tact on this, and I agree. But I believe they have the tools to do so. 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.

In other words, I have no idea how rules as written say you grow a tail. That seems purely outside the rules as written. The same could be said for a magic item of feat that augments darkvision. If it said your darkvision improves by 20 feet, but you don't have darkvision that does not mean that it grants you darkvision of 20 feet, because you cannot improve what you don't have. It could be possible (due to the prerequisites or the available item slot) to take the feat or wear the item. It is even possible with some of racial trait swaps to take an item designed to augment the core traits or morphology of the race, but since you have swapped out of that option, it is possible for you to take it, but for you it does nothing. It is also possible though some strange item, encounter, or monster, or GM fiat to lose a tail if you were a kobold, but that doesn't mean the act of having this feat would allow you to regrow such a tail.

In summary, when we write the rules, we do intend a level of reason and even common sense. We have to, because instead of making things "air-tight." Personally I believe, and have always believed, that one of the benefits of tabletop RPGs is to allow the mind and the imagination to breathe. Often we don't feel we need to codify such things in rules, because the logic is (we suppose) easily apprehended by the mind and the common sense of it is pleasing to the imagination.

Great post Stephen.

I like reading your posts. You both sane and amusing... and a Gentleman. :)


Thank you Darksol the Painbringer, that is exactly what I meant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'll stop arguing on this thread anymore, we won't agree on this topic and we're more talking about RAI than RAW, on the rules forum.

Just on the disguise arguing:

RAW: You can be monstrous and don't need a disguise check.

IMO, yeah, people can suspect you're not human anymore when you've got metallic skin, wings, tails and stuff. If you want to pass as a traditional [Insert your race here], make your disguise check.

But, to be suspected of being something more powerful than a human can have its benefices too, btw. Still, it's my way of playing.

Sidenote on the restriction part: To whoever doesn't like restrictions, that's fine, but IMHO Pathfinder is the best Paper RPG for someone who prefers more freedom and Role-Play.
Me, I like rules and restrictions. Even more as a player for the challenge it brings, as soon as it feels coherent to me, and it is not plain stupid. This is why I like Pathfinder, and 3.5 before it. My players/GMs are aware of that, and it's fine. Tastes and stuff.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Yeah, but we all know that RAW is full of ridiculousness (such as being able to pass a baton around the world in six second or not being able to see the sun in the sky) and should be taken with a modicum of sense.

Human or not, it makes sense that if you look monstrous, you will need to make a disguise check to not look monstrous. It has nothing to do with being human or not human, and everything to do with trying not to look different.

Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zark wrote:

Great post Stephen.

I like reading your posts. You both sane and amusing... and a Gentleman. :)

Thanks, Zark. Those are the three things I always aim for when posting. :)


Ravingdork wrote:
Yeah, but we all know that RAW is full of ridiculousness (such as being able to pass a baton around the world in six second or not being able to see the sun in the sky) and should be taken with a modicum of sense.

Blinks

Starts digging around the back yard for pod people


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm afraid that's not going to work BNW. We've evolved.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Blink... Blink...

For those of you coming in at the tail end of the discussion...

The reason the Disguise Check is in question (And being talked about) is because some that were disappointed with the "ruling" that Humans don't have tails have now adopted the Aasimar with an alternate form that is of a different race (with a tail!).

They would take the Racial (Ability Swap) trait Scion of Humanity and be treated as human even though they are shaped (Morphologically speaking) as the chosen tailed race. This trait mentions that the Aasimar needs no disguise check to appear as human, as they actually appear as human!!

That, of course, is difficult if they are of the alternate race form, as they are not human looking at all.

I will, again, say that the human centric racial (ability swap) traits may not be available to the variant Aasimar, subject to GM approval.

As RAW, I don't see how they could take them.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For the Scion of Humanity trait, I would say a logical view would be that any alternate Aasimar race would also alter the name of that trait. They would appear as a normal member of that race, as celestial and that race are the only components. no human in there.


You're Human. You have grown scales, and wings, and claws.. and maybe even a tail. You no longer look human, and would have to make a disguise check to hide up your.... alterations.

Sion of Humanity makes you look human, which would trump any of the alternate visual aspects normally available, because it makes you look Human.

You can take the alternate, and have a Halo. The Halo can be manifested as a spell-like ability. Well, that tells me it's not always there. So while it's not active, Hey.. you look human. Manifest the halo? well.. all it really is, is a light source. Easily explained as a spell of some sort, he still looks human.

Aasimar takes Angel Skin/Angel Wings, however.. well he no longer looks human, and would from then on, have to make a disguise check to pull off being human. Why? Because Sion stated one thing.. but that is then over-written.

All it would do, really, is alter the modifiers of the disguise check DC. I read Sion as letting you ignore the -2 to pass for a different race (ie. Human). Wings, Skin, etc.. those are still different features that must be covered up.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

My Scion of Humanity Aasimar licks his tail with his 10ft. long prehensile tongue.


Kinky


Is it possible to choose Succubus as the target of the Racial Heritage feat even though it follows the guidelines of the Humanoid type despite not having the Humanoid creature type? or is there something that can be chosen to make it possible to choose the succubus as a target for heritage?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
DavidDowdle001 wrote:
Is it possible to choose Succubus as the target of the Racial Heritage feat even though it follows the guidelines of the Humanoid type despite not having the Humanoid creature type? or is there something that can be chosen to make it possible to choose the succubus as a target for heritage?

I have no idea exactly what you are asking, but I will try.

Racial Heritage require you to be Human.

You choose a humanoid race, and the allows you to count as that race.

A Succubus is not Human, nor is Humanoid.


DavidDowdle001 wrote:
Is it possible to choose Succubus as the target of the Racial Heritage feat even though it follows the guidelines of the Humanoid type despite not having the Humanoid creature type? or is there something that can be chosen to make it possible to choose the succubus as a target for heritage?

You choose a Humanoid Race that is not Human. Succubus is not a Humanoid race. It's a type of Outsider. Therefore it would not qualify.

Unless there is an ability that functions exactly like Racial Heritage which allows you to count as an Outsider for blah blah blah, I'd say no, it's not possible.


Half-Elves count as both Human and Elf and feats are effects for the races so a Half-Elf is able to qualify to the Racial Heritage feat.

But is there some ability that would allow a Half-Elf to count as a succubus?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
DavidDowdle001 wrote:

Half-Elves count as both Human and Elf and feats are effects for the races so a Half-Elf is able to qualify to the Racial Heritage feat.

But is there some ability that would allow a Half-Elf to count as a succubus?

No.

You should start a separate thread, as this is not related to the subject at hand.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The reason that the Aasimar is in the discussion is the Scion of Humanity racial trait. (A trait that replaces another race ability in favor of the alternative trait)

There is, in a companion book, a variant Aasimar that can appear to be of a different race than the human centric one that is more prevalent and common.

My contention, since this veers into GM approval Territory, is that the Scion racial trait alters along with the variant, giving them the race sub catigory as the race that the new Variant appears to be. (Thus, eliminating the need for Racial Heritage for a Kobold Aasimar, since they could already take the Tail Terror feat with the Scion of Kobold Kind trait)

Others still want this to be a Human Aasimar looking like a Medium sized Kobold with the human sub type. (If you are the Kobold variant, the Aasimar would be Small Sized)

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I say the Scion of Humanity alternate racial trait does what it says it does.

There is nothing that says it changes appearance, but rather, alters the native subtype.

This could just as well be an internal alteration.

Outsiders are creature from other realms, and even the most Human looking Outsider still has a hard time blending in.

Native Outsiders are more in touch with the material plane, but still otherworldy enough to require good disguise skills to fit in.

This is the nature of their type.

Even the Succubus, in Human form, needs to make Disguise checks.

Scion of Humanity trait is a deeper connection to the material plane, and the humanoid type. It is not an alteration of looks, but of type.

It changes how spells effect you, and how others see you.

Even if exotic in appearance, you have the presence to come off Human.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Common sense is stronger in thaX's case even if RAW is stronger in blackbloodtroll's. This is why I favor thaX's argument. Also keep in mind the RAI of scion of humanity; to help a default aasimar function better as her base race. By switching to a variant aasimar you make scion of humanity an absurd choice.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Even if exotic in appearance, you have the presence to come off Human."

???

Did you look at that sentence when you typed it in?

So if an Aasimer looks like a Kobold, you maintain that he can still convince everyone else around him that he is human? Without a disguise check?

I... I... don't know what else to say at this point.


thaX wrote:

"Even if exotic in appearance, you have the presence to come off Human."

???

Did you look at that sentence when you typed it in?

So if an Aasimer looks like a Kobold, you maintain that he can still convince everyone else around him that he is human? Without a disguise check?

I... I... don't know what else to say at this point.

He is saying that with all the ways a player can modify their body through feats and class abilities and whatnot they still come off as human. He then says scion of humanity is just another way for a "human" to look odd but still clearly come across as some kind of human.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Odd as in Harry Potter character odd? or odd as in appearing to be a kobold?

I know he is trying to say that the Scion of Humanity is somehow still relevant to a character Aasimar that is of a variant centric race other than human, but the trait no longer gels when the character doesn't appear to be human at all when using the variant race. It is a GM call to allow the variant and I would even go so far, as a GM, to say that any of the human centric racial ability traits will not be available to the variant Aasimar.

Perhaps I would change those that base the effect of the trait off of the human aspect of the race to the new race the character emulates, such as Scion being of the variant race rather than Human. That would be my call.

None of this is RAW, as the Variant is a GM baby to work with.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Well, playing any race, requires DM approval.

Technically.

If you are going to say that anything that requires DM approval, isn't RAW(that is weird), then nothing is RAW.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Having the Kobold or Lizardman variant Aasimar is another way for one to get a tail, hence the discussion. It is rules finagling as one tries to go through a back door without opening it first.

I understand the want, just not the means. This kobold looking thing is actually human doesn't strike me as making sense.

Yeah, the overall "I suddenly have a tail" thing got smooshed when the developer came in and commented about it. This thread is done except for this corner case that is out of left field.


I know I'm late to this, but I figure I'll put in my .02 anyway.

After reading much (but certainly not all) of this thread, I'm fairly certain that racial heritage would provide a human with a tail attack, etc.

I am a firm believer that the flavor text of any feat is indeed just that, flavor. It should not be used when determining the availability of feats. Prerequisites are the only thing required when determining whether a feat is available to a character or not.

I'll start with the Human / kobold / tail terror as it is the most straightforward.

Racial Heritage is very clear in this case. If you choose Kobold as your Racial Heritage, you gain access to any feats, traits, etc. that have "kobold" as a racial requirement.

Moving on to the feat, Tail Terror has only two requirements, BAB+1 and the racial requirement "kobold."

The issue of contention seems to be that folks are under the impression that a human with a kobold heritage doesn't have a tail. In reality it doesn't matter if they have a tail or don't when it comes to working out feat requirements. Having a tail is NOT a requirement of Tail Terror. It is the responsibility of the player and the GM to generate the fluff that accommodates the hard-rules. Maybe it grew slowly over time, maybe it grew overnight? Leave those details to the individual.

Lets look at it another way. What if one of your PC's rolled up a dwarf ranger and wrote a detailed and elaborate background for him. In that background he describes being an orphan, raised by a human hunter. His entire pre-level 1 life was spent being trained in how to hunt and kill little forest animals. Would you automatically deny him the built-in "Hatred" racial trait because his character was never actually "specially trained against those hated foes"?

I doubt a lot of GMs would. Heck, I doubt most GM's would care.

There are plenty of things that aren't clearly stated in the rules or are outright ludicrous that we follow along with anyway. The Draconic bloodline power doesn't say "you grow big ol' juicy glands in your neck that allow you to breath fire" It just says "you gain a breath weapon."

A rogue with martial weapons prof can use a GREATAXE to attack an opponent THAT IS LOOKING RIGHT AT HER. If the conditions are right, she can add XD6 to her attack roll and somehow call it a "sneak attack"!

What I'm saying is, sometimes we just have to overlook the common sense aspect. It is much easier to tailor the fantasy to the rules than it is to tailor rules to fantasy.

1,101 to 1,150 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.