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


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 1,170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Doesn't a human need to have some kobold blood (via another trait/feat) in order to select this feat. Couldn't that blood manifest as a tail or scales or some other non-standard characteristic. These features could even develop post-birth, maybe as a result of a traumatic experience, an exposure to magic, or even different foods and environment. There seems to be lots of roleplaying fodder here.

Certainly. However, it is being argued that taking one or both of these feats (Racial Heritage or Tail Terror) unambiguously grant said tail. Given that Racial Heritage makes no mention of physical traits in its rules section, and its fluff only refers to blood, I think that it does not do more than it says it does.

Tail Terror presumes the character is a kobold, so its text allows the character to make a tail slap attack with the tail that kobolds are depicted as having. Due to the text assuming the character possesses a tail, it refers to "your tail". It does not account for the possibility that the character may not have one. It is being argued that the phrasing "your tail" provides the character a tail regardless of whether they had one previously. It is this that I disagree with.

If you and your GM decide that your character has a tail, in preparation to take and use Tail Terror, I welcome the interesting concept. I do not agree that such an interpretation is RAW, intended, or permissible as a basic, default option for a player without said GM permission.


Bizbag wrote:
If you and your GM decide that your character has a tail, in preparation to take and use Tail Terror, I welcome the interesting concept. I do not agree that such an interpretation is RAW, intended, or permissible as a basic, default option for a player without said GM permission.

^This.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those saying that racial descriptive text does not have rules impact:

Go look at creature types. Note that it says in multiple entries that creatures such as Outsiders, Undead and others are proficient with "whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing" or "any weapons mentioned in its entry". Racial descriptions are valid references for what things a creature does/does not have. BY a similar token, humanoids don't need to be described as having 2 arms and 2 legs because the rules already tell you "A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head". If it varied from that, it would mention it in the racial description. Like it does when it talks about kobolds having tails.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
There's a general guideline that feats do exactly what they state and nothing else.
There's also a general guideline that abilities have only the limitations of what's listed. At issue is the feat Tail Terror, which does state you can perform a tail slap. In my view, that's what it states and nothing else. There is no rule that says, "By the way, even if you have Tail Terror, it doesn't work, because humans don't have tails." Tail Terror is what makes Tail Terror work; it says you attack with your tail.

Does the text say, "Tail Terror gives you a tail"? No.

You're reading the phrase "your tail" to be equivalent to "You can make a tail slap with [the tail that this feat grants to you]." That isn't stated, or (in my opinion) even implied.

If you had a feat that said, "You may make a second attack with your longsword..." do you assume that simply because you took the feat you are magically granted a longsword at all times? Because to me, that's the same argument - the fact that one is a body part while the other is a separate object is irrelevant; it's all based on the assumption that when the feat says "...your tail..." that it's also granting you the necessary weapon to make the attack.

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

So, Tail Terror does nothing for kobolds?

Kobolds are specifically described as having tails.
Not in the rules.
Kobold wrote:
Physical Description: Kobolds are small, bipedal reptilian humanoids. Most stand around 3 feet tall and weigh about 35 pounds. They have powerful jaws for creatures of their size and noticeable claws on their hands and feet. Often kobolds' faces are curiously devoid of expression, as they favor showing their emotions by simply swishing their tails. Kobolds' thick hides vary in color, and most have scales
...
PRD wrote:


Ankheg
This burrowing, bug-like monster scuttles about on six legs, drooling noxious green ichor from its clacking mandibles.

So an Ankhegis is a 4 armed, winged reptilians that smoke hookahs as the description of the aspect of the race is not a rule for you?


Happler wrote:

For those saying that humans don't have arms and legs due to lack of description in the fluff text. They do not need to put it in the fluff text, since it is already called out by the creature type of Humanoid.

Quote:

Humanoid

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.

The only time it would need to be called out in the description of the race, is when the humanoid race differs from this description.

Except that's not what it says.. It says usually.. I don't see a single thing in that mentioning to see fluff blocks for further descriptions.. If you want to interpenetrate it that way please do so but that's not what it says.

Shadow Lodge

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Happler wrote:

For those saying that humans don't have arms and legs due to lack of description in the fluff text. They do not need to put it in the fluff text, since it is already called out by the creature type of Humanoid.

Quote:

Humanoid

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.

The only time it would need to be called out in the description of the race, is when the humanoid race differs from this description.
Except that's not what it says.. It says usually.. I don't see a single thing in that mentioning to see fluff blocks for further descriptions.. If you want to interpenetrate it that way please do so but that's not what it says.

That is exactly the plain, common meaning of the text. What you mean is, "If you want interpret it according to the plain, common usage of the English language you can but that's not the way I will read it."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Happler wrote:

For those saying that humans don't have arms and legs due to lack of description in the fluff text. They do not need to put it in the fluff text, since it is already called out by the creature type of Humanoid.

Quote:

Humanoid

A humanoid usually has two arms, two legs, and one head, or a human-like torso, arms, and a head. Humanoids have few or no supernatural or extraordinary abilities, but most can speak and usually have well-developed societies. They are usually Small or Medium (with the exception of giants). Every humanoid creature also has a specific subtype to match its race, such as human, giant, goblinoid, reptilian, or tengu.

The only time it would need to be called out in the description of the race, is when the humanoid race differs from this description.
Except that's not what it says.. It says usually.. I don't see a single thing in that mentioning to see fluff blocks for further descriptions.. If you want to interpenetrate it that way please do so but that's not what it says.

'Usually' is a word roughly meaning "this is the norm"; by extension, anything else is an exception.

So is it possible that you could have a humanoid with more than two arms? Yes.

Should you ever assume that a humanoid race has more than two arms when their description does not indicate they have more than two arms? Not if you're trying to follow common sense. When told a humanoid has 2 arms, and then encountering a humanoid race that has four arms but that lacks that in its description block, the sensible course is to assume that was a gross mistake - not that it means that a lack of that statement means you can pick and choose the number of arms that any humanoid has.

Just to note, there is no such thing as "fluff blocks". 'Fluff' is a handy term, and one that I use myself from time to time, but the fact is that those descriptive blocks are as much a part of the rules text as everything else. It's true that there are times when 'fluff' turns out not to be accurate, but disregarding it in the face of multiple supporting references in order to argue something that's not even implied isn't sensible.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wow.

A FAQ isn't needed here, just a dev to come on either thread and say "Tail Terror needs a tail to work" and be done with it.

I can't believe two thread are going on and on about something asked and answered. The OP even assumed that the Half Orc in question would have the attack regardless.

This is a funny world.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Kobolds:

Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

Emphasis mine. :)

There seems to be an awful lot of shyness about discussing this line. If the description of kobolds is enough to establish they have tails, this line should be sufficient to establish that someone with Tail Terror has a tail.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No one is ignoring it. It is assumed that Kobolds have Tails. It isn't a Kobold taking the feat, it is a Half-Orc. He does not have a tail. He is a typical Half-Orc, though, and would still prolly take the feat even if he can't make use of it.

Wait, he can get a Monky Belt. That would give him a tail (for five minutes)


Xaratherus wrote:


Just to note, there is no such thing as "fluff blocks". 'Fluff' is a handy term, and one that I use myself from time to time, but the fact is that those descriptive blocks are as much a part of the rules text as everything else. It's true that there are times...

I'm not trying to be rude here but I can't figure out a more polite way to coach this. This is the most asinine thing I have ever read.. If that were true and the companies design team were to hold their descriptive fluff as an actual part of the rules, as someone who cant stand the games default setting, which is what I'm almost positive is all its meant to be is a 'This is what they look like in our world and not an actual rule', I'd never buy another of their products.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

RJGrady, with the exact same emphasis as your assertion:

PRD wrote:


Extend Spell (Metamagic)

You can make your spells last twice as long.

Benefit: An extended spell lasts twice as long as normal. A spell with a duration of concentration, instantaneous, or permanent is not affected by this feat. An extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.

Emphasis mine, copying RJGrady. By your argument this line establishes that any character with Extend Spell can cast spells, and make them last twice as long.

Note that Extend Spell doesn't even have prerequisites, let alone require spellcasting.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Kobolds:

Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

Emphasis mine. :)

There seems to be an awful lot of shyness about discussing this line. If the description of kobolds is enough to establish they have tails, this line should be sufficient to establish that someone with Tail Terror has a tail.

That argument is the same as a player telling the GM that he now has a mount because he takes the mounted combat feat which says:

Mounted Combat (Combat)
You are adept at guiding your mount through combat.
Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate action) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent's attack roll.

If your interpretations were applied to this feat you would gain a mount for free.

Shadow Lodge

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:


Just to note, there is no such thing as "fluff blocks". 'Fluff' is a handy term, and one that I use myself from time to time, but the fact is that those descriptive blocks are as much a part of the rules text as everything else. It's true that there are times...
I'm not trying to be rude here but I can't figure out a more polite way to coach this. This is the most asinine thing I have ever read..

No offence intended but you need to go back and read your own posts in the past two threads because they take the cake for asinine.

VargrBoartusk wrote:


If that were true and the companies design team were to hold their descriptive fluff as an actual part of the rules, as someone who cant standthe games default setting, which is what I'm almost positive is all its meant to be is a 'This is what they look like in our world and not an actual rule', I'd never buy another of their products.

Thank you. That is exactly right. The text for humanoid and for kobolds is the default way the world is RAW. If you want to make humans have two head and four arms in your game that is fine. If you want them to have the option of having tails that is fine. However, that is not the default for the Pathfinder game. By default, in the default world with the default rules Humans don't have tails and don't get one from Tail Terror.


VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:


Just to note, there is no such thing as "fluff blocks". 'Fluff' is a handy term, and one that I use myself from time to time, but the fact is that those descriptive blocks are as much a part of the rules text as everything else. It's true that there are times...
I'm not trying to be rude here but I can't figure out a more polite way to coach this. This is the most asinine thing I have ever read.. If that were true and the companies design team were to hold their descriptive fluff as an actual part of the rules, as someone who cant stand the games default setting, which is what I'm almost positive is all its meant to be is a 'This is what they look like in our world and not an actual rule', I'd never buy another of their products.

Then don't buy another one of their products - or, at the least, be prepared to house rule, because it's true.

Show me in the books anywhere where it says, "Some of this text is fluff and can be ignored when it contradicts what you assume to be crunch." Don't bother; such text doesn't exist. 'Fluff' and 'crunch' are terms adopted by the community, but the book - all of it, including the descriptive passages - are the rules.

You want a good example of people who trip over assuming that descriptive text can be safely ignored? Look at the recent FAQ on the Witch's Cackle hex. Many people assumed that because it was a supernatural ability, and those don't require vocal components, that they could Cackle silently - stealth cackling. When the designers FAQed it they said, "No, when it says in there that you must "cackle" we really meant that you need to let out a loud and audible maniacal laugh."

As to the comment being asinine - you're a person on the Internet; I'll give your opinion all the weight it deserves.


PatientWolf wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:


Just to note, there is no such thing as "fluff blocks". 'Fluff' is a handy term, and one that I use myself from time to time, but the fact is that those descriptive blocks are as much a part of the rules text as everything else. It's true that there are times...
I'm not trying to be rude here but I can't figure out a more polite way to coach this. This is the most asinine thing I have ever read..

No offence intended but you need to go back and read your own posts in the past two threads because they take the cake for asinine.

VargrBoartusk wrote:


If that were true and the companies design team were to hold their descriptive fluff as an actual part of the rules, as someone who cant standthe games default setting, which is what I'm almost positive is all its meant to be is a 'This is what they look like in our world and not an actual rule', I'd never buy another of their products.

Thank you. That is exactly right. The text for humanoid and for kobolds is the default way the world is RAW. If you want to make humans have two head and four arms in your game that is fine. If you want them to have the option of having tails that is fine. However, that is not the default for the Pathfinder game. By default, in the default world with the default rules Humans don't have tails and don't get one from Tail Terror.

Okay.. One fluff is not rules until someone official says so.. At witch point I'll concede the argument and stop patronizing the company. Not over the tail attack thing but over a company making its descripive fluff part the mechanics without letting me reskin visuals how I want to. The text on humanoids I'll grant you is more binding but it also says usually. It also says nowhere that you cannot have a tail as a human or as an elf or as anything else. It also doesn't say anywhere you need a tail in your descriptive fluff to make a tail attack. All of these things are RAW deciding not to give someone without mention of a tail might be RAI because that's the intent but its not whats written.


RJGrady wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Kobolds:

Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

Emphasis mine. :)

There seems to be an awful lot of shyness about discussing this line. If the description of kobolds is enough to establish they have tails, this line should be sufficient to establish that someone with Tail Terror has a tail.

k, let's drag that out and kick it around, shall we?

You're arguing that because the description of the feat indicates that you have strengthened your tail that it must mean you have a tail.

Let's take a look at this:

Extend Spell wrote:

You can make your spells last twice as long.

Benefit: An extended spell lasts twice as long as normal. A spell with a duration of concentration, instantaneous, or permanent is not affected by this feat.

Level Increase: +1 (an extended spell uses up a spell slot one level higher than the spell's actual level.)

The feat has no requirement that you be able to cast spells. So by the exact same logic that you're using, because the description indicates that you can cast spells, you could take this as a Fighter and be able to cast spells.

That's of course not true. Neither is it true that the Tail Terror feat grants you a tail. The lack of a requirement means that you can take the feat, but it does not guarantee that you will have the necessary resources - a tail, or spellcasting ability - to make use of it.

VargrBoartusk wrote:
Okay.. One fluff is not rules until someone official says so.. At witch point I'll concede the argument and stop patronizing the company. Not over the tail attack thing but over a company making its descripive fluff part the mechanics without letting me reskin visuals how I want to. The text on humanoids I'll grant you is more binding but it also says usually. It also says nowhere that you cannot have a tail as a human or as an elf or as anything else. It also doesn't say anywhere you need a tail in your descriptive fluff to make a tail attack. All of these things are RAW deciding not to give someone without mention of a tail might be RAI because that's the intent but its not whats written.

Again - there is no fluff. We have a book, with text in it. Nowhere in that book does it say, "This is fluff, and this is rules."

As for the rest: No one is stopping you from reskinning the visuals however you so desire. But the rules forums is, first and foremost, for discussing the rules as written. You're attempting to argue that what you're stating is RAW; it's not. It's a perfectly fine house rule, and frankly as a GM if a person said they wanted to play a human with a tail, I'd probably work with them and we'd do it - but that's irrelevant because it's not RAW.

The rules - in general; there are exceptions - describe what you are allowed to do; the fact that something is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that it's automatically allowed by RAW.

Dark Archive

VargrBoartusk wrote:


Okay.. One fluff is not rules until someone official says so.. At witch point I'll concede the argument and stop patronizing the company. Not over the tail attack thing but over a company making its descripive fluff part the mechanics without letting me reskin visuals how I want to. The text on humanoids I'll grant you is more binding but it also says usually. It also says nowhere that you cannot have a tail as a human or as an elf or as anything else. It also doesn't say anywhere you need a tail in your descriptive fluff to make a tail attack. All of these things are RAW...

You are more then welcome to reskin the visuals as you wish (aka house rule them to be different then what is stated in the book). But the default visuals for a Kobold include a tail, and the default visuals for a half-orc do not.

Part of the design of the game is this, If you own the core book, you should be able to join in someone's game with limited difficulty. (Especially in a PFS game). If you want to reskin the visuals as you put it, you would need to give the player the list of changes (and other house-rules) that you use in your game. Otherwise they will assume that the races are as described in the book.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
VargrBoartusk wrote:


Okay.. One fluff is not rules until someone official says so.. At witch point I'll concede the argument and stop patronizing the company. Not over the tail attack thing but over a company making its descripive fluff part the mechanics without letting me reskin visuals how I want to. The text on humanoids I'll grant you is more binding but it also says usually. It also says nowhere that you cannot have a tail as a human or as an elf or as anything else. It also doesn't say anywhere you need a tail in your descriptive fluff to make a tail attack. All of these things are RAW...

Do you need a mount to use Mounted Combat? A mount is not listed as a prerequisite. Do you need to be able to cast spells to use Extend Spell? Spell casting is not listed as a prerequisite. The argument you are making is ludicrous. The feat Quickdraw doesn't list actually possessing a weapon as a prerequisite. So I suppose at your table that even if your character possesses no weapons he can still use Quickdraw to pull one out of his rear end just as you are trying to do with a tail.


Xaratherus wrote:

Again - there is no fluff. We have a book, with text in it. Nowhere in that book does it say, "This is fluff, and this is rules."

As for the rest: No one is stopping you from reskinning the visuals however you so desire. But the rules forums is, first and foremost, for discussing the rules as written. You're attempting to argue that what you're stating is RAW; it's not. It's a perfectly fine house rule, and frankly as a GM if a person said they wanted to play a human with a tail, I'd probably work with them and we'd do it - but that's irrelevant because it's not RAW.

The rules - in general; there are exceptions - describe what you are allowed to do; the fact that something is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that it's automatically allowed by RAW.

You can say this all you want.. At this point I hold no validity or worth in anything you have to say and will no longer be reading it. I disagree with you. I do not think you are correct. We believe differently. Our opinions dissimilar. We do not see things the same way. We do not grok. Thank you however for once again reminding me why I need to find out if there is a block function on this board.

Heres something from the Core Rulebook page 20

Core book said wrote:

Each of the seven races also has a suite of special abilities,

bonuses, and other adjustments that apply to all members
of that race. These are your character’s “racial traits.”

That is the only mention of any part of the write ups applying to all members of that race. The racial traits everything else is in fact described as a generalization and no where does it say I cannot be different.

It is not against the rules if I want to play a blue half orc. It is not against the rules if I wish to play a dwarf that takes no pride in the length of his hair and shaves it without being insane. I may play an elf with a musclebound oversized physique. I can play a halfling who never walks anywhere without boots. I dont have to pick my names from the list of names that would be all they could chose from if those were rules. Also just for fun I can pick my height and weight and age rather then rolling them.


RJGrady wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Kobolds:

Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

Emphasis mine. :)

There seems to be an awful lot of shyness about discussing this line. If the description of kobolds is enough to establish they have tails, this line should be sufficient to establish that someone with Tail Terror has a tail.

In addition to what others have noted above, the rule was written with the understanding that the characters who would take it are kobolds. And since kobolds are assumed to have tails, the feat was written with the understanding that the character taking it would already have a tail.

That the Racial Heritage feat exists doesn't mean that every race rule ever created was written contemplating that a human might take Racial Heritage. Just like classes are written under the assumption that PCs are single-class, race feats are written under the assumption that PCs taking them are members of that race. Hence, the assumption that if one were to take Tail Terror one would already have a tail.

You're reading far too much into the word "your".


PatientWolf wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Kobolds:

Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

Emphasis mine. :)

There seems to be an awful lot of shyness about discussing this line. If the description of kobolds is enough to establish they have tails, this line should be sufficient to establish that someone with Tail Terror has a tail.

That argument is the same as a player telling the GM that he now has a mount because he takes the mounted combat feat which says:

Mounted Combat (Combat)
You are adept at guiding your mount through combat.
Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate action) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent's attack roll.

If your interpretations were applied to this feat you would gain a mount for free.

Actually, all it grants is "adept"-ness, just as Extend Spell only grants doubling.

Tail Terror, however, grants ... tail slap! KA-POW!

There is absolutely no way you to win this argument on RAW. You take the RAI road or you go home.

The "common sense" thing is not a bad tack, but unfortunately, in this case, it can go either way, depending on what you think a reasonable result of Racial Heritage is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:

Actually, all it grants is "adept"-ness, just as Extend Spell only grants doubling.

Tail Terror, however, grants ... tail slap! KA-POW!

There is absolutely no way you to win this argument on RAW. You take the RAI road or you go home.

Your argument was that "You strengthen your tail..." indicates that you're granted a tail; the statement "Your spells last twice as long as normal..." follows the same grammatical structure and logic, and so by your argument would indicate that it grants you the ability to cast spells.

I know you're trying to be humorous, but the two statements and the argument you're applying are clearly equivalent, but because reading those other feats the way you're reading Tail Terror leads to an invalidation, you have to move the goalposts.

So then you're using double standards, and so I don't see a need to continue discussing it further.


Your spells do last twice as long as normal. Two times zero is zero.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is the same type of example that I proffered with Blugeoneer not giving the character the weapon needed to use the feat with.

He isn't gonna give. Until he gets to a table and a GM rules against him and tells him why, he believes that his way is the only way and others should take his way or hit the highway.

Not sure what else to try and say to make headway for him to weigh the crux of what we say, only that he stays on his point come what may.

I am tired now, must sleep.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You strengthen your tail.

A strengthened nonexistent tail is nonexistent.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:
A FAQ isn't needed here, just a dev to come on either thread and say "Tail Terror needs a tail to work" and be done with it.

Funny thing is most of these people use the "RAW" as meaning "If I can dream up an awkward clearly false interpretation I get to keep it until they rewrite it to close my interpretation" meaning.

So they then argue with the post (sometimes they even do it with a FAQ) and try to prove the developer wrong.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Kobolds:

Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

Emphasis mine. :)

There seems to be an awful lot of shyness about discussing this line. If the description of kobolds is enough to establish they have tails, this line should be sufficient to establish that someone with Tail Terror has a tail.

That argument is the same as a player telling the GM that he now has a mount because he takes the mounted combat feat which says:

Mounted Combat (Combat)
You are adept at guiding your mount through combat.
Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank.
Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as an immediate action) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent's attack roll.

If your interpretations were applied to this feat you would gain a mount for free.

Actually, all it grants is "adept"-ness, just as Extend Spell only grants doubling.

Tail Terror, however, grants ... tail slap! KA-POW!

There is absolutely no way you to win this argument on RAW. You take the RAI road or you go home.

The "common sense" thing is not a bad tack, but unfortunately, in this case, it can go either way, depending on what you think a reasonable result of Racial Heritage is.

You love quoting that the feat grants you a tail slap, wrong. It says you can make a tail slap with something. However, as with every other feat you must possess that something in order to make use of the now granted tail slap. That something is a tail. The feat itself doesn't grant it by RAW. YOU are the one stepping outside RAW to try and make an argument.

Every feat that says you can use X to perform Y means you must have X to perform Y. Quick Draw says you can draw a weapon as a free action instead of a move action. What if you don't have a weapon? Sorry the feat doesn't given you a weapon. Likewise Tail Terror allows you to perform a Tail Slap but does not grant the tail. If you get a magic item that adds a tail, are under a polymorph that gives you a tail, or obtain a tail any other way you can then use the feat you already possess but the feat itself does not add a tail or let you use tail slap without one. That is RAW.


VargrBoartusk wrote:
It is not against the rules if I want to play a blue half orc. It is not against the rules if I wish to play a dwarf that takes no pride in the length of his hair and shaves it without being insane. I may play an elf with a musclebound oversized physique. I can play a halfling who never walks anywhere without boots. I dont have to pick my names from the list of names that would be all they could chose from if those were rules. Also just for fun I can pick my height and weight and age rather then rolling them.

You're right. It's not against the rules. Of course it's not RAW either. In case you don't know, RAW means rules as written. What we are discussing are written rules, not what you are allowed to change for a home game. Until you understand that you cannot really contribute anything of value to the conversation.


PatientWolf wrote:


Every feat that says you can use X to perform Y means you must have X to perform Y.

And every feat that says you have X means you have X. Tail Terror says you have a tail. You may not like that it does, but it does say that.


RJGrady wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


Every feat that says you can use X to perform Y means you must have X to perform Y.
And every feat that says you have X means you have X. Tail Terror says you have a tail. You may not like that it does, but it does say that.

And you continue to say this despite repeated examples of it not being true...


All you are saying is that Tail Terror is somehow wrong. It does, in fact, say

Quote:


You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.

Yet somehow people are finding a way to read that to mean you don't have a tail.

And then it says

Quote:


You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

which somehow people are interpreting as, "You can't make a tail slap attack with your tail."

I guess if you torture rules enough they will confess to anything.


RJGrady wrote:

All you are saying is that Tail Terror is somehow wrong. It does, in fact, say

Quote:


You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Yet somehow people are finding a way to read that to mean you don't have a tail.

And Extend Spell in fact says:

Quote:
You can make your spells last twice as long.

Yet somehow you are finding a way to read that to mean you don't have spells. I guess if you torture the rules enough they will confess to anything.

If you can be obstinate in your point, then we can be just as obstinate in pointing out examples where your argument completely falls apart.


I'm not obstinate, just unpersuaded. If you're just going to trot out points I've already answered pages ago, there isn't much value in continuing.


RJGrady wrote:

All you are saying is that Tail Terror is somehow wrong. It does, in fact, say

Quote:


You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.

Yet somehow people are finding a way to read that to mean you don't have a tail.

And then it says

Quote:


You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

which somehow people are interpreting as, "You can't make a tail slap attack with your tail."

I guess if you torture rules enough they will confess to anything.

Wrong. People are saying you cannot make a tail attack without a tail. Neither feat gives the character a tail. The same way extend spells doesn't give you spells to extend or weapon focus not giving you weapons.

Shadow Lodge

RJGrady wrote:

All you are saying is that Tail Terror is somehow wrong. It does, in fact, say

Quote:


You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.

Yet somehow people are finding a way to read that to mean you don't have a tail.

And then it says

Quote:


You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

which somehow people are interpreting as, "You can't make a tail slap attack with your tail."

I guess if you torture rules enough they will confess to anything.

All the torturing is being done by you.

Quick Draw says "You can draw weapons faster than most."

then it says: "Benefit: You can draw a weapon as a free action instead of as a move action."

Applying the exact same logic you are applying to Tail Terror would mean that Quick Draw provides you a weapon. So if an opponent disarms you of the only weapon your character possessed never fear Quick Draw provides one.

Multiple feats have been pointed out to you over and over again that use the exact same grammatical structure as Tail Terror and you just ignore what has been said and reiterate your argument as if it hasn't been debunked time and time again.


RJGrady wrote:
I'm not obstinate, just unpersuaded. If you're just going to trot out points I've already answered pages ago, there isn't much value in continuing.

You're right, there's not, especially since the only answer you've provided to my last point was to move the goalposts and continue to trot out the same points that I (and others) have already countered pages ago.

Have fun at your next game!

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
RJGrady wrote:
I'm not obstinate, just unpersuaded. If you're just going to trot out points I've already answered pages ago, there isn't much value in continuing.

You have yet to answer any of the points made. You simply assert everyone else is wrong and repeat your argument.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:

All you are saying is that Tail Terror is somehow wrong. It does, in fact, say

Quote:


You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Yet somehow people are finding a way to read that to mean you don't have a tail.

Let me clarify things for you. First, we are not reading that the character doesn't have a tail. We are understanding that the feat itself is for a race that has a tail. (Kobold)

RJGrady wrote:


And then it says

Quote:


You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.
which somehow people are interpreting as, "You can't make a tail slap attack with your tail."
Clarification two. Second, we are not reading that the character can not use his tail to attack. We are understanding that to use an attack that makes use of an appendage then the appendage needs to be there for the character to make use of.
RJGrady wrote:


I guess if you torture rules enough they will confess to anything.

Are you looking in the mirror when you typed this?


It doesn't matter whether kobolds have tails. The question, in the case of Tail Terror, is, "What does this feat do?" To me, the answer is obvious. It grants you a tail slap. You're arguing about whether it's appropriate for Tail Terror to grant a tail. I say, it doesn't matter; Racial Heritage makes no indication of what is appropriate or not. Tail Terror does not, despite the title of this discussion, require a "feature" you don't have. It simply requires a tail. You assume a character with Racial Heritage (kobold) lacks a tail; I read Tail Terror as clearly saying they have one.


RJGrady wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:


Every feat that says you can use X to perform Y means you must have X to perform Y.
And every feat that says you have X means you have X. Tail Terror says you have a tail. You may not like that it does, but it does say that.

Sweet! So Greater Whip Mastery ensures I always have a whip! Good to know!

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
RJGrady wrote:
It doesn't matter whether kobolds have tails. The question, in the case of Tail Terror, is, "What does this feat do?" To me, the answer is obvious. It grants you a tail slap. You're arguing about whether it's appropriate for Tail Terror to grant a tail. I say, it doesn't matter; Racial Heritage makes no indication of what is appropriate or not. Tail Terror does not, despite the title of this discussion, require a "feature" you don't have. It simply requires a tail. You assume a character with Racial Heritage (kobold) lacks a tail; I read Tail Terror as clearly saying they have one.

My apologizes, I was not going to respond to this but...

You read that, but yet it does not actually imply that at all.

Hence, the explanation on the Feat being originally for a Kobold, who does have a tail, vs. the Half-Orc getting the feat for no benefit unless he can, afterward, gain a tail to use with it.

I offered up the example of perhaps making specialized armor that has a mechanical tail for the character to use, or perhaps he can get the magical item "Monkey Belt" to get one 5 minutes at a time.

I don't know... I guess if you torture rules enough they will confess to anything.


For what it's worth, I don't think a mechanical tail is what is meant by "your tail." Body parts are not equipment, and I don't think the phrase "your tail" means the same thing as "your whip." If you happened to acquire some sort of weapon or other item that happened to be called a tail, I don't think Tail Terror would work with it. Tail terror grants a natural weapon attack, and of course that is associated with a specific body part. "Your tail" simply means you have a tail. Even if the benefit section is unambiguous, just as with Greater Whip Mastery and the other exemplar feats, the descriptive text ("You have strengthened your tail") tells us what category of thing we should be looking for with regard to the phrase "your tail." Greater Whip Mastery says "you can use a whip," whereas Tail Terror says "you have strengthened your tail," and so the difference in how we read "your whip" versus "your tail" is made clear.

But there is really no question as to how natural weapons are granted. A tail slap implies a tail. If you don't think Tail Terror is legal, it's because you think there is an implicit prerequisite that has not been met. I don't agree that such a prerequisite is obvious. To me it seems that Tail Terror, by granting a tail slap, offers precisely the same benefit to the half-orc as to the kobold. The question of how you have a tail comes down to only description. In short, it's simple to presume that the combination of Racial Heritage (kobold) and Tail Terror leads to the possession of a tail.

You might find it preposterous, but in my mind, it's no different than trying to discern how a tiefling might come by a Celestial sorcerer bloodline.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I am more interested in other examples.

Everyone seems to be focusing solely on the Tail Terror feat.

There is already a thread dedicated solely to that feat.


fretgod99 wrote:
RJGrady wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

Kobolds:

Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail.

Emphasis mine. :)

There seems to be an awful lot of shyness about discussing this line. If the description of kobolds is enough to establish they have tails, this line should be sufficient to establish that someone with Tail Terror has a tail.

In addition to what others have noted above, the rule was written with the understanding that the characters who would take it are kobolds. And since kobolds are assumed to have tails, the feat was written with the understanding that the character taking it would already have a tail.

That the Racial Heritage feat exists doesn't mean that every race rule ever created was written contemplating that a human might take Racial Heritage. Just like classes are written under the assumption that PCs are single-class, race feats are written under the assumption that PCs taking them are members of that race. Hence, the assumption that if one were to take Tail Terror one would already have a tail.

You're reading far too much into the word "your".

Maybe if I quote myself I'll get a response?


blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am more interested in other examples.

Everyone seems to be focusing solely on the Tail Terror feat.

There is already a thread dedicated solely to that feat.

By the logic in this thread then Two-Weapon Fighting will let you grow back a lost arm. Pretty Handy, and possibly easier to obtain at low levels than a regeneration spell...

The previous statement was serious, but is absolutely not my actual opinion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I am more interested in other examples.

Everyone seems to be focusing solely on the Tail Terror feat.

There is already a thread dedicated solely to that feat.

By the logic in this thread then Two-Weapon Fighting will let you grow back a lost arm. Pretty Handy, and possibly easier to obtain at low levels than a regeneration spell...

The previous statement was serious, but is absolutely not my actual opinion.

Well, there are weapons that do not require hands.

Of course, you may still need two real hands, to have the two metaphorical hands, to two weapon fight, with weapons that don't require hands.

It's all written in the unwritten rules, which are RAW(Rules As Written), even though they are not written.

So, maybe the answer to all the questions in this thread are in the unwritten rules, as they are RAW.

Grand Lodge

Aye. Two-weapon fighting doesn't grow back arms. But off-hand doesn't exactly mean.. another hand. There are lots of weapons that don't require a second hand, or better yet there are ways around it. Such as locking gauntlet, perhaps putting a blade in your hair, or pelvic thrusting.

A person getting Tail terror, could grow a massive pony tail, and use that to tail whip the enemy. Heck my alchemist grows a tentacle a lot and uses it as a tail most of the time.


Espy Kismet wrote:

Aye. Two-weapon fighting doesn't grow back arms. But off-hand doesn't exactly mean.. another hand. There are lots of weapons that don't require a second hand, or better yet there are ways around it. Such as locking gauntlet, perhaps putting a blade in your hair, or pelvic thrusting.

A person getting Tail terror, could grow a massive pony tail, and use that to tail whip the enemy. Heck my alchemist grows a tentacle a lot and uses it as a tail most of the time.

Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?

101 to 150 of 1,170 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / 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.