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


Rules Questions

1,151 to 1,170 of 1,170 << first < prev | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | next > last >>

Should have read all of it.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Well I stand corrected, as a designer stepped in. Although I do have to say it feels like a cop out.

Since we've established that Characters can take "feats that don't work for them" do those feats still function as prerequisites?

For example, a human / kobold could take Draconic Aspect, even though he doesn't have scales, so the feat would be useless.

Could he still use Draconic Aspect to fulfill the requirements for Draconic Glide or would he be disqualified because even though he has the pre-req, he can't use it? Unlike Tail Terror, Draconic Glide clearly states "you grow a pair of wings."

Also, is it just me or does it seem like there are lots of relatively easy ways to gain permanent wings, but very limited ways to gain a tail?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In my mind, a human's skin would have a particular sheen instead of having scales. Similar feats have done this elsewhere.

Common Sense, as mentioned, can be used to equate "scales" to "skin" in that particular case, though Stephen did mention it as an example going the other way.

I believe Draconic Aspect has been mentioned by a couple posters here as being a feat that would grant the boons it provides.

When using Racial Heritage, just keep in mind what the differences between the human and the other race is, and if the human would be able to emulate a racial ability that the feat requires.


Dagnabbit, why is this thread still alive?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Cause people keep posting on it...

Oops.


Tragic Missile wrote:

Well I stand corrected, as a designer stepped in. Although I do have to say it feels like a cop out.

Since we've established that Characters can take "feats that don't work for them" do those feats still function as prerequisites?

For example, a human / kobold could take Draconic Aspect, even though he doesn't have scales, so the feat would be useless.

Could he still use Draconic Aspect to fulfill the requirements for Draconic Glide or would he be disqualified because even though he has the pre-req, he can't use it? Unlike Tail Terror, Draconic Glide clearly states "you grow a pair of wings."

Also, is it just me or does it seem like there are lots of relatively easy ways to gain permanent wings, but very limited ways to gain a tail?

that is a very good question you should faq that question. that is an actual legitimate question.


I agree with Lobolusk, and am not aware of that question having been asked anywhere else - has it? That would be a pretty cool way to get flight... growing some wings because of your heritage.


I don't mean to sound ignorant as i did not bother to read every post in this thread and indeed it seems to have died out some years ago. For those who choose to read this and have possible questions on a standing on the some what hazy concept of Racial Heritage.
What is to stop an individual from deciding that (In a fantasy setting) that they realize their heritage at a certain level or say age. Considering that it is in my opinion up to the GM to decide what he will allow or not. I say if the player can reason it out in any justifiable way, even if that way doesn't make normal logical sense, being that they are in a land of magic and fantasy. Humans in a normal world biological sense grow new teeth when they hit a certain age. Adult teeth. Whats to say in a fantasy setting a human with say reptilian blood at a certain age matures and grows a tail as a normal bodily function that doesn't manifest until he reaches (adult hood).
I understand that the rule is fuzzy and it has caused controversy but we need to stay focused that this is a game where many things that are not possible can be a possibility in the world we create. If you are having such trouble with it as a rule stickler just compromise and have the player hand make a race out of the ARG book following the point system for humanoids and simply take the racial trait that allows for a tail. Then simply have them grow it at a certain point with the maturity of the race as a built in mechanic (with the okay of the GM running the campaign).
Some one may have already made this point. As i said i didn't read all the material on the thread. I just hadn't seen this concept voiced in the few pages i did read. You may point out rules don't say you can't but i believe in high fantasy allowing the extreme and unusual to occur with possible frequency. So basically i say Why not as long as you can in some way legitimize it, even if it is a possibly weak argument as long as it fits the campaign setting and the GM allows it possible set up as a House Rule then why bother saying you can't to every one under the belief that your way is the right way and that others should conform to it?

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

I didn't read your wall of text in much the same way you say you didn't read this thread.

If I got the gist of your text correctly, it is "Ask your GM"? If so, yes.


PatientWolf wrote:
Espy Kismet wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


That is not true but you have to make that claim because of your twisted interpretation of this text do you have to make that claim. Alchemist abilities, spells and many other things, including feats, make changes to your body long after creation. Just one example would be several of the Ifrit feats that cause your body temperature to be extremely hot or your blood to be boiling.

So since feats can change your bodily features and you claim those very bodily features are an effect and subject to Racial Heritage then that logic compels the conclusion that a character could be going along for years looking just like a normal human and then take Racial Heritage and look 100% like a Kobold right then and there.

I do not have any twisted interpretations of the text. Mearly point out at character creation, your appearance is set. Yes, there are a plethora of ways to alter yourself afterwards, however we're not using those ways are you.

Feats can change your bodily features, this is true. But like gender, you cannot simply just wake up one day after going to bed male and wake up female with no magical reason for it.

Your appearance is created at level one, affected by the races you have at that time. Or perhaps you're trying to say at later levels a male character can just poof into female without the use of magical methods?

Again, quite wrong in this, unfortunate to say.

The fact of the matter is you've created what you looked like at level 1, and baring magical things or feats that specifically call out changes, you cannot alter your appearance any furthermore. Which is why Racial heritage can give you a tail at level 1, but not grow a tail at level 3.

First you admit that feats can change features but then argue that feats can't change by cherry picking certain features that there just don't happen to be feats associated with them. There is nothing in the rules that says feats can't change your features, any features, after...

Eldritch Heritage actually requires you to be level three and grants you immediate claws. Am I missing something?

A) it's heritage but it didn't manifest until level 3

B) it does not limit your claws to appear after a year of normal growth. You get them immediately

So there are both feats and heritage feats that grant immediate physical manifestation of some altered body and not at character creation but after having made it to level 3 (or later)


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

The only thing you are missing is that the claws granted by a sorcerer bloodline via the Eldritch Heritage feat are only available for a few rounds per day -- they are not a permanent physical change.


[This thread radiates a Strong Aura of Necromancy.]


It is both interesting and sad to hear that a developer has said using the feat would twist the RAW if you said it granted a limb or feature when combined with yet another feat.

Not only is it odd that combining two feats to gain this isn't enough without claiming it breaks the rules (when some of these races with those features are playable on their own) but the very nature of the typical benefits (tail slap, claws, tusklike teeth) are minor and never seem to grant an amazing level of mechanical benefit.

Most experienced players seem to be pretty clear that claws and tails and teeth and scales are all only mechanically worth it (sometimes) at early levels and since most of these racial natural attacks are in the neighborhood of 1d4 or 1d6 damage, it's almost punishing to the 'fluff' of a character to prohibit. I can think of very few ways that these features would actually cause uproar at a table where a 1st level barbarian is going to brutalize someone with far more damage than a couple d4 claws.

When a player really wants to play a character with claws or sharp teeth and the PFS playable races (without boons) only offer a bird-like (and very odd looking) way to that, it just seems petty to keep a player from adding that bit of character style (claws or teeth or tail) just because it doesn't fit with what most people would consider normal for a human in a fantasy world where you can get lycanthropy or mutations from protoflesh or take damage to your physical abilities from a touch spell.

If I understand correctly, the comment from a developer puts the issue to rest but I have to admit that I'm personally dismayed to hear that anyone in development considered giving a human the odd body part through two feats (even if you limited it to character creation) would be game breaking.


Felix Danger wrote:
Most experienced players seem to be pretty clear that claws and tails and teeth and scales are all only mechanically worth it (sometimes) at early levels and since most of these racial natural attacks are in the neighborhood of 1d4 or 1d6 damage,

Experienced players know that the die is irrelevant. Real damage comes from addons and riders: Sneak attacks, smites, and as high as you can get them stat bonuses either dex or strength. Adding attacks is very powerful because its a literal force multiplier.

For PFS, if you want a bite attack you can also be a kitsune. Or one of the three ways to gain a bite attack that an orc has.

I don't think you understand the Developer statement. A feat, for kobolds, that increases your tail attack by a step assumes that you have a tail. If you do not have a tail, the feat does not grant you one. That's it. The feat does not grant you a tail for the simple reason that it doesn't say that it grants you a tail.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

[This thread now radiates an Overwhelming Aura of Necromancy. You have been stunned for 1 round for trying to detect the amount of Necromancy this thread has.]


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Felix Danger wrote:
Most experienced players seem to be pretty clear that claws and tails and teeth and scales are all only mechanically worth it (sometimes) at early levels and since most of these racial natural attacks are in the neighborhood of 1d4 or 1d6 damage,

Experienced players know that the die is irrelevant. Real damage comes from addons and riders: Sneak attacks, smites, and as high as you can get them stat bonuses either dex or strength. Adding attacks is very powerful because its a literal force multiplier.

For PFS, if you want a bite attack you can also be a kitsune. Or one of the three ways to gain a bite attack that an orc has.

I don't think you understand the Developer statement. A feat, for kobolds, that increases your tail attack by a step assumes that you have a tail. If you do not have a tail, the feat does not grant you one. That's it. The feat does not grant you a tail for the simple reason that it doesn't say that it grants you a tail.

Personally, I'm only looking for claws...and only in the narrative "sounds cool" sense - but claws are only available as a bird creature which is not the feral "sounds cool" concept OR I get a race boon for a specific race at a convention OR as a sometimes magical change like a bloodline power. The end result being that a cool concept idea in a fantasy world where all kinds of monsters and mutations and races live has no real way of happening without some kind of large GM, con, or venture captain intervention because of a concern over power gaming?

Claws are hardly the fastest way to overpowered meta munchkins and restricting them certainly hasn't stopped that problem. The claws don't do much from a rules perspective unless you can combine them with a host of other feats (like sneak attack and power attack that you'd have to build up). Claws are more likely to be used by players that are into the _idea_ over the actual mechanics...and being willing to burn 2 feats in order to get there seemed reasonable enough.

But the developer statement says, having the Mixed Blood Heritage feat AND the Sharp Claw feat doesn't grant claws that your race doesn't have.

Now I haven't read all the feats and there's probably some racial or monster feats in PC creation that'd be too powerful to allow through this (like steel wings or swallow whole or something). But I'd love it if maybe the Wilderness splat book that's coming out or something coming soon allowed for a simple feat like "your ancestry cursed you with a mutation at birth - gain claws 1d4 but suffer a -1 when dealing with people of your own race because you're not normal". It's a solution without making too big a deal about it and it's been 5 years of players clearly wanting some kind of animal or feral mutation in this thread alone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

i cannot understand any basis for your complaints. There are lots of mechanical ways to gain claws. Use one of them. I dipped 2 levels of barbarian and the claws last longer than the adventuring day. If you want to be monstrous your claws can be visible all the time and then extend when you go into combat. If you want to have claws to pick chainmail out of your teeth or slice cheese, i don't think many dms are going to charge you a daily use.

claws aren't the only thing this ruling affects. Imagine someone taking weapon focus: tail, weapon focus, gore, weapon focus, bite, weapon focus, wing, weapon focus left butt cheek. By what you're saying each of those feats grants someone an extra attack.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

i cannot understand any basis for your complaints. There are lots of mechanical ways to gain claws. Use one of them. I dipped 2 levels of barbarian and the claws last longer than the adventuring day. If you want to be monstrous your claws can be visible all the time and then extend when you go into combat. If you want to have claws to pick chainmail out of your teeth or slice cheese, i don't think many dms are going to charge you a daily use.

claws aren't the only thing this ruling affects. Imagine someone taking weapon focus: tail, weapon focus, gore, weapon focus, bite, weapon focus, wing, weapon focus left butt cheek. By what you're saying each of those feats grants someone an extra attack.

*takes notes*


I agree with BNW on this one.

If you really want claws for mechanical uses, there are tons of ways to get them (class abilities from Sorcerer, Bloodrager, Barbarian, Oracle, etc.; several different races; a wide variety of magic items; etc.).

If you just want them for RP factor, then just say your character has claws, but either never learned how to fight with them, or their not structurally sound enough for combat.


Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

i cannot understand any basis for your complaints. There are lots of mechanical ways to gain claws. Use one of them. I dipped 2 levels of barbarian and the claws last longer than the adventuring day. If you want to be monstrous your claws can be visible all the time and then extend when you go into combat. If you want to have claws to pick chainmail out of your teeth or slice cheese, i don't think many dms are going to charge you a daily use.

claws aren't the only thing this ruling affects. Imagine someone taking weapon focus: tail, weapon focus, gore, weapon focus, bite, weapon focus, wing, weapon focus left butt cheek. By what you're saying each of those feats grants someone an extra attack.

*takes notes*

I like the solution of having claws that extend for combat and so long as the rules allow for it then that's a creative way of getting the concept within the rules of bloodline or raging. That certainly satisfies my personal character concept.

I still don't understand why there aren't any "mutation feats" that would essentially grant something like claws or a tail or a single cyclopian eye (with negative social modifiers but the benefits of the mutation) in a world of magic, alchemy, dimensional travel, and monsters. It feels less out of place than gunslingers and robots, but I appreciate you giving me a narrative way of getting the specific concept I'm looking for.

1,151 to 1,170 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.