|
Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?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.
Is there a feat not to be a ginger?
|
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.
So then, by that assertion, if I took Racial Heritage: Kitsune, and took the Realistic Likeness feat, I automatically gain a racial change shape ability. After all, having change shape isn't a requirement of the feat, and the feat says whenever I use it something happens, so obviously I have it. Or if I take Racial Heritage Changeling and the Mother's Gift feat and choose the Hag Claws manifestation, then I gain a pair of claws. After all, it says I get a +1 bonus to attacks and damage with my claws, and the feat doesn't say I have to have claws, so it must give me claws.
Ooh, or I can take Racial Heritage: Vanara and the Tree Hanger feat! It says I can hang from sturdy objects by my tail, which means it gives me a tail.****
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...
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.
What if they're using a bastard sword?
Is there a feat not to be a ginger?Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?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.
I'm guessing by your flippant response that your answer is "no." Also judging by your response, you realize that answering that question "no" makes the case for spontaneously gaining a new tail quite terrible.
|
|
I'm guessing by your flippant response that your answer is "no." Also judging by your response, you realize that answering that question "no" makes the case for spontaneously gaining a new tail quite terrible.Is there a feat not to be a ginger?Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?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.
Well considering I'm a supporter for having it at character creation...
Well considering I'm a supporter for having it at character creation...I'm guessing by your flippant response that your answer is "no." Also judging by your response, you realize that answering that question "no" makes the case for spontaneously gaining a new tail quite terrible.Is there a feat not to be a ginger?Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?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.
...you refuse to answer the RAW of his question?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As much as I enjoy the absurdity of this thread and its predecessor, it's a shame that the interesting question (about the wording and implications of feats) is buried under the whole tail thing, which ultimately comes down to GM fiat. I'm strongly on the side that Tail Terror cannot grant a tail, but in terms of practical play, RAW is silent on allowing Racial Heritage to grant a tail, so it's a non-issue.
But this persistent argument that because Tail Terror refers to "your tail," a character who contrives to qualify for it is thereby shown to have a tail? It's totally misguided. You can't "back into" a character feature by qualifying for a feat that mentions that feature. That sort of interpretation would not only raise problems with existing feats, but would make future feat-writing onerous, as writers wouldn't be able to reference even the most ubiquitous character feature (like, say, "your head") without somebody abusing the feat to sprout a skull from their gelatinous cube PC.
And what's gained by this weird way of reading feats? There's no rule saying you can't give a PC a tail, fur, or whatever cosmetic feature you want. This strange reading by which feats can grant character features via loophole only matters in the case of features that are mechanically significant and addressed by existing rules... and in those cases, a stricter reading is better for the game.
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.
Tail terror gets most of the focus because it was the only feat in the example worded poorly enough to say with your tail rather then just granting the ability The gripli, nagaji, catfolk, and other races that racial heritage can benefit from because of an arbitrary bit of phrasing aren't being questioned. The argument is the tail terror works this way because the descriptive fluff says kobolds have a tail and neither humans nor the racial heritage feat grant this mystical tail that the tail terror feat modifies.. Granted this justification requires that one ignores that neither the description under the humanoid type nor the specific description of gripli call out that they have tongues.. and because it needs to be stated because some people are fascinated by putting words into other peoples mouth.. I do not in fact think that neither have tongue Its simply a way to illustrate that these arguments are not unilateral and are in fact poor or iffy examples and/or are based on things that are not and were never meant to be 'rules'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a feat not to be a ginger?Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?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.
No, but there is a special template for playing a ginger.
|
Tail terror gets most of the focus because it was the only feat in the example worded poorly enough to say with your tail rather then just granting the ability The gripli, nagaji, catfolk, and other races that racial heritage can benefit from because of an arbitrary bit of phrasing aren't being questioned. The argument is the tail terror works this way because the descriptive fluff says kobolds have a tail and neither humans nor the racial heritage feat grant this mystical tail that the tail terror feat modifies.. Granted this justification requires that one ignores that neither the description under the humanoid type nor the specific description of gripli call out that they have tongues.. and because it needs to be stated because some people are fascinated by putting words into other peoples mouth.. I do not in fact think that neither have tongue Its simply a way to illustrate that these arguments are not unilateral and are in fact poor or iffy examples and/or are based on things that are not and were never meant to be 'rules'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.
Your arguments get more and more insane with every post. You first claimed that nothing in the rules said humans had arms and legs. That was proven false because the humanoid description does state that. Now because the description does not list every single body part you declare that the existence or non-existence of any body part is fluff. So you can make a human without a head or a heart or better yet two heads. Maybe an extra set of arms. Yes a tongue is not mentioned but neither is s spleen, liver, or brain. That is because words in the English languages have meaning. Most people know what a human looks like; two arms, two legs, a head, and no tail. Most know what a wolf looks like, four legs, fur, long nose, fur, and fangs. Grippli's are described as frog like and people know what frogs are like with long tongues. These features are implied by the use of the English word associated with that creature. When the rules say frog, wolf, dog or human they mean an ordinary member of the species unless otherwise noted. If they are not using the common English meaning of those words then you might as throw out the rules because they can mean literally anything.
The Racial Heritage feat only says you are genetically NOT physically different than any other human. It allows you to meet racial prerequisites for a feat and that is all no more and no less. The tail as you have noted is not listed as the prerequisite for the Tail Terror feat but is included in the rules text as the object with which the Tail Terror must be performed just as with Whip Mastery actual possession of a whip is not necessary to take the feat but to actually use the feat it is required. So Racial Heritage will allow you to meet the Kobold racial requirement but you must obtain a tail to use it.
You keep saying that any mention of a tail is fluff but it is not.
Tail Terror (Combat)
You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it. This is arguably fluff
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack WITH YOUR TAIL. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. This is all rules text. You can't tail slap with a long sword, whip, your hand or anything other than a tail. The part about the tail is just as much rules as the part about it being a secondary not primary attack or that it does bludgeoning not piercing damage. You do a tail slap with your tail and you can't do it without a tail or with any other appendage or object.
|
|
...you refuse to answer the RAW of his question?Well considering I'm a supporter for having it at character creation...I'm guessing by your flippant response that your answer is "no." Also judging by your response, you realize that answering that question "no" makes the case for spontaneously gaining a new tail quite terrible.Is there a feat not to be a ginger?Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?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.
Rather, I rebut his attempt to lead the question by another such attempt.
However an interesting thought came to me, by RAW, what is a tail? What qualifies as a tail by RAW? IS there any rules written that says "This is a tail, and this is not a tail? is there RAW on what you're character's appearance can be?
Most people know what a human looks like; two arms, two legs, a head, and no tail. Most know what a wolf looks like, four legs, fur, long nose, fur, and fangs.
I'd also like to put out that most people know that being genetically different (Having mutant bloodlines) often comes with physical differences as well.
For example, Oh i don't know.. Lizard from spiderman.
If the game doesn't define a term then you use accepted English standards to determine the meaning. A tail is the thing growing from their backs that kobolds have and half-Orcs don't. If you don't want to be led down a path of logical examination of your assertions then you should concede your point is illogical and quit this insanity.
|
|
...you refuse to answer the RAW of his question?Well considering I'm a supporter for having it at character creation...I'm guessing by your flippant response that your answer is "no." Also judging by your response, you realize that answering that question "no" makes the case for spontaneously gaining a new tail quite terrible.Is there a feat not to be a ginger?Does Tail Terror allow a kobold to grow back a severed tail?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.
Rather, I rebut his attempt to lead the question by another such attempt.
However an interesting thought came to me, by RAW, what is a tail? What qualifies as a tail by RAW? IS there any rules written that says "This is a tail, and this is not a tail? is there RAW on what you're character's appearance can be?
This is yet another attempt to say that if the developers don't independently define every word then that word doesn't have any meaning at all. By the word tail the developers meant exactly the same thing as the ordinary everyday common English usage of the word tail in that context. The definition of the word tail is itself the RAW of what a tail is.
|
|
So in other words, if its not defied by RAW, then its not RAW, but logical assumption of the English words?
IS this correct?
The reason we're going down this path is because of the constant "ITS NOT RAW ITS NOT RAW!" then when we point out what else is not raw "ITS NOT LOGICAL IN ENGLISH!"
SO lets look at English of the word!
You've got a racial heritage. Which basically means somewhere along the line, your ancestors mated with something not-human.
Now lets ask. Are you or are you not genetically different from other humans?
|
|
So in other words, if its not defied by RAW, then its not RAW, but logical assumption of the English words?
IS this correct?
No, the common definition is RAW. What are "rules"? What does the word "written" mean by RAW? For the Bleeding condition it states:
Bleed: A creature that is taking bleed damage takes the listed amount of damage at the beginning of its turn
Well what does the word "IS" mean? What does the word "taking" mean? What does the word "listed" mean? What does the word "beginning" mean. What does the word "the" mean? Is there RAW on what those words mean? The standard definition IS RAW unless RAW defines it otherwise.
|
|
SO lets look at English of the word!
You've got a racial heritage. Which basically means somewhere along the line, your ancestors mated with something not-human.
Now lets ask. Are you or are you not genetically different from other humans?
Again the common definition applies IF THE RAW DOESN'T OTHERWISE DEFINE IT. For Racial Heritage it spells out exactly what they mean. In this instance the developers meant something different than the common usage so they spell it out explicitly. It says explicitly "Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." That is it. No physical changes.
|
|
Please contain yourself.
The common definition of having an ancestor often includes the idea that the the child of the ancestory takes on traits of the ancestor is it not?
For example If you have an ancestor with male pattern baldness, there is a high chance that you'll also have such baldness, Correct?
|
|
SO lets look at English of the word!
You've got a racial heritage. Which basically means somewhere along the line, your ancestors mated with something not-human.
Now lets ask. Are you or are you not genetically different from other humans?
Again the common definition applies IF THE RAW DOESN'T OTHERWISE DEFINE IT. For Racial Heritage it spells out exactly what they mean. In this instance the developers meant something different than the common usage so they spell it out explicitly. It says explicitly "Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." That is it. No physical changes.
So effects related to race? Very well. I choose to have my appearance be affected by my choices of the races.
|
|
Please contain yourself.
The common definition of having an ancestor often includes the idea that the the child of the ancestory takes on traits of the ancestor is it not?
For example If you have an ancestor with male pattern baldness, there is a high chance that you'll also have such baldness, Correct?
However, Racial Heritage isn't using the common definition because the developers explicitly say otherwise. It says "You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." That is it. Period. Nothing Else.
|
|
So effects related to race? Very well. I choose to have my appearance be affected by my choices of the races.
SO lets look at English of the word!
You've got a racial heritage. Which basically means somewhere along the line, your ancestors mated with something not-human.
Now lets ask. Are you or are you not genetically different from other humans?
Again the common definition applies IF THE RAW DOESN'T OTHERWISE DEFINE IT. For Racial Heritage it spells out exactly what they mean. In this instance the developers meant something different than the common usage so they spell it out explicitly. It says explicitly "Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race." That is it. No physical changes.
If your GM wants to house rule that you are allowed that choice then feel free. However, by RAW your appearance due to your race isn't an effect.
Your arguments get more and more insane with every post. You first claimed that nothing in the rules said humans had arms and legs. That was proven false because the humanoid description does state that. Now because the description does not list every single body part you declare that the existence or non-existence of any body part is fluff. So you can make a human without a head or a heart or better yet two heads. Maybe an extra set of arms. Yes a tongue is not mentioned but neither is s spleen, liver, or brain. That is because words in the English languages have meaning. Most people know what a human looks like; two arms, two legs, a head, and no tail. Most know what a wolf looks like, four legs, fur, long nose, fur, and fangs. Grippli's are...
So.. If I'm right here.. My arguments you speak of.. Which is not my first claim, entertainingly misrepresented by you and, a counter argument to someone else saying 'Its listed in the descriptive fluff and thus it is there as a rule.'
When I'm saying that If a tail has to be listed in the fluff to exist then other things do too. That I still don't believe that this tail you people keep ranting about exists as a thing in the rules. That the only part of races that are rules are the race traits <Ie stat adjustments, movement speed ETC.> thus kobolds and humans are equal in their tailness under the rules, just as humans and gripli are equal for tongueness. That I believe both the RAW and the RAI of several feats involved to be awkward and/or confusing <Why a ten foot tongue is okay to grow but a tail is not> and because, unlike most of the loudly braying jackass brigade, I have in fact said several times that its easily open to interpretation both ways and personally I cant be sure how I'd rule it. Thus I would like Dev commentary to clear it up. Finally, that I personally do not believe descriptive text is rules material at all and thus no one has shown me anything to counter that a whip is a thing within the rules and a tail is not.Is, somehow, growing *more* insane every time despite having been consistent. In fact, other then to take away what I said about arms and legs because as mentioned the humanoid write up <I didn't think to look through the bestiary since I was using the humanoid text in the ARG race builder. That was my mistake.> does in fact state them, albeit with the word 'usually' as opposed to the probably better for your argument 'unless otherwise noted'. Everything I've said has been just about exactly the same each time I've said it. I believe you were saying something about words having meaning under the English language Mr. Pot ?
@Espy
I'm sorry. I didn't realize you didn't know what a tail is. I can now understand your confusion.
|
|
Your arguments get more and more insane with every post. You first claimed that nothing in the rules said humans had arms and legs. That was proven false because the humanoid description does state that. Now because the description does not list every single body part you declare that the existence or non-existence of any body part is fluff. So you can make a human without a head or a heart or better yet two heads. Maybe an extra set of arms. Yes a tongue is not mentioned but neither is s spleen, liver, or brain. That is because words in the English languages have meaning. Most people know what a human looks like; two arms, two legs, a head, and no tail. Most know what a wolf looks like, four legs, fur, long nose, fur, and fangs. Grippli's are...So.. If I'm right here.. My arguments you speak of.. Which is not my first claim, entertainingly misrepresented by you and, a counter argument to someone else saying 'Its listed in the descriptive fluff and thus it is there as a rule.'
When I'm saying that If a tail has to be listed in the fluff to exist then other things do too. That I still don't believe that this tail you people keep ranting about exists as a thing in the rules. That the only part of races that are rules are the race traits <Ie stat adjustments, movement speed ETC.> thus kobolds and humans are equal in their tailness under the rules, just as humans and gripli are equal for tongueness. That I believe both the RAW and the RAI of several feats involved to be awkward and/or confusing <Why a ten foot tongue is okay to grow but a tail is not> and because, unlike most of the loudly braying jackass brigade, I have in fact said several times that its easily open to interpretation both ways and personally I cant be sure how I'd rule it. Thus I would like Dev commentary to clear it up. Finally, that I personally do not believe descriptive text is rules material at all and thus no one has shown me anything to counter that a whip is a thing within the rules and a tail is...
As I've stated before equally as many times the words mean their regular common usage unless otherwise noted. a Human is exactly what we thing of as a human in normal English unless otherwise defined. Human's have tongues. Go outside and grab the first other human you see and ask them to open their mouth. You will find they do indeed have a tongue. Ask them to bend over and look at their butt. You will find they do NOT have a tail. Even without the humanoid description in any of the books we could STILL definitively say that humans don't have tails by default in the game. Only when you argue that words don't have a standard meaning unless defined in a game book do you start having a problem with the language being confusing but if words themselves have no inherent meaning then I get why you are so confused.
|
|
If your GM wants to house rule that you are allowed that choice then feel free. However, by RAW your appearance due to your race isn't an effect.
So now you're trying to say that my appearance is not affected by my race, though I'd have to say you're quite wrong.
It quite clearly it states in the book what effect choosing human would have on your appearance. It also states quite clearly what effect choosing kobold would have as well. To state that choosing a race doesn't affect your appearance... well goes against everything else you've been arguing about.
And since Racial heritage says you count as both for all effects, we have the appearance of both Kobold and Human. However, since appearance can only be set at character creation, it would mean for Racial heritage to have this sort of effect of giving a human a kobold's tail, the human would have to take it at level one, and have is appearance be affected by both races.
In otherwords, if you started at level 1, and when to level three and /then/ chose to pick up racial heritage. No, your character cannot have a tail, unless you figure out a way to alter your appearance again.
|
|
If your GM wants to house rule that you are allowed that choice then feel free. However, by RAW your appearance due to your race isn't an effect.
So now you're trying to say that my appearance is not affected by my race, though I'd have to say you're quite wrong.
It quite clearly it states in the book what effect choosing human would have on your appearance. It also states quite clearly what effect choosing kobold would have as well. To state that choosing a race doesn't effect your appearance... well goes against everything else you've been arguing about.
Now, since appearance can only be set at character creation, it would mean for Racial heritage to have this sort of effect of giving a human a kobold's tail, the human would have to take it at level one, and have is appearance be affected by both races.
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'm going to regret throwing my 2 cents in, but from reading these four pages this is what I would do for my home game:
Racial Heritage (Kobold): COULD grant me a tail, with GM permission.
Tail Terror: Does not grant me a tail, but if I worked with my GM and wanted to have a tail via Racial Heritage, then I would qualify.
It seems to me that the crux of the argument is false. It's not Tail Terror that we need to look at, it's Racial Heritage. Racial Heritage says, "Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on."
So, if I take Racial Heritage (Kobold), I qualify for any trait or feat that says "Prequisite: Kobold". This means I would indeed qualify for Tail Terror by RAW. From a RAI standpoint, one could argue that the heritage feat would grant a tail so that a kobold heritage person would qualify for the feat. It's an important difference though, to note that it's the HERITAGE feat, not the Tail Terror feat, that would grant the tail.
If we're purely interested in a RAW discussion, the Heritage feat would merely allow one to take the feat, not necessarily use the feat, in the same way taking Racial Heritage Elf would qualify you to take the Treespeaker Archtype, but if you didn't qualify to be a druid for some other reason, it would not allow you to bypass it. The RAI view, though, makes it clear that we should allow a human to take Tail Terror and use it, but the feat doesn't grant the tail, it's the blood you've "gained" by having the heritage feat that would grow the tail.
As an aside, the whole "your tail" argument is really one of symantics, and I'm sure a linguistics professor could break down the sentence structure for us, but really, it's unnecessary.
At the end of the day, going "Yes, your kobold heritage has manifested as a tail!" is not game breaking, not against RAW, nor against RAI. On the other hand, going "Hey I know I'm a normal looking human, but I want an extra attack, so overnight I grow a tail and now I can use it with weapons, k?" is not the intent. From a RAW standpoint, you could make the argument, but ultimately it would be up to your GM whether to allow that to happen without some kind of in game rational.
|
|
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.
|
|
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 creation. If feats can change features they can change features at any time unless the feat says otherwise.
That said I am off work and heading home for an actual game tonight so someone else will have to take over responding to your inconsistencies. Will be interesting to see where this convo has gone on Monday.
So the fact that racial heritage does not have the restriction forcing you take it at level 1 convinces you that your claim is wrong?
|
|
Actually, I've been very consistent.
Appearance is an effect created by your race at character creation. Your race affects how your appearance is and will be, barring feats/spells that specifically call you that "YOU HAVE NOW CHANGED."
Racial heritage causes your races to affect your appearance between the two races at character creation. Never higher. The reason you cannot have it higher is because there is nothing in the language that states "YOU HAVE NOW CHANGED"
Likewise this is on par with choosing between male or female or one of the many shades in between. Baring magical intervention you cannot change your gender. However, if you decide to be a male, you are not limited to Arnold Schwarzenegger's body structure, and if you choose female you're not limited to only Angelina Jolie. You might be more Jonny Depp, or Mimi (From the drew carry show.) Or you could be Pat from Saturday Night live. The Dynamic could even be to the point were you look like the hanson brothers (Looking female, despite being male.) or looking like some of those female body builders, who look more male despite being female.
So to reiterate -
Take it at character creation = Affects appearance
Take it after character creation = Does not affect apperance
So to reiterate -
Take it at character creation = Affects appearance
Take it after character creation = Does not affect apperance
Care to point me to the passage in the rules where this come from?
|
|
Step 6—Finishing Details: Finally, you need to
determine all of a character’s details, including his
starting hit points(hp), Armor Class(AC), saving throws,
initiative modif ier, and attack values. All of these numbers
are determined by the decisions made in previous steps.
Aside from these, you need to decide on your character’s
name, alignment, and physical appearance. It is best to jot
down a few personality traits as well, to help you play the
character during the game. Additional rules (like age and
alignment) are described in Chapter 7
Step 6 comes after Step 4, which step 4 is where you select your feats.
Thank you, and please come again.
I'm sorry, I don't see the part where it says taking racial heritage after character creation doesn't affect your appearance.
I also don't see the part where it says choosing racial heritage at character creation allows you to augment your appearance beyond racial norms.
|
|
I'm sorry, I don't see the part where it says taking racial heritage after character creation doesn't affect your appearance.
I also don't see the part where it says choosing racial heritage at character creation allows you to augment your appearance beyond racial norms.
And I also don't see the part where your physical appearance is delegated by racial norms.
Thank you, and Please come again.
And I also don't see the part where your physical appearance is delegated by racial norms.
Just so I understand your position, if I wanted to make a character who's legs came out of where their eyes should be, arms from where their legs should be, a tail from where each of their arms should be, and the tails had their eyes at the end, and my character walked upside down (you know, because their legs are in their head), that would be within both the RAW AND the intent of the rules?
From the RP perspective this doesnt seem right, not even going near a tail for this point but if you would not allow a character to look at all different from the feat than how would you allow a ranger to use their non magical/supernatural favored enemy bonus against them, there is literally nothing to tell the Racial Heritage mutant apart from a normy. You have to at least add a huge modifier to the DC. (+25 to ID the heritage type and gain bonuses?)I'm sorry, I don't see the part where it says taking racial heritage after character creation doesn't affect your appearance.
I also don't see the part where it says choosing racial heritage at character creation allows you to augment your appearance beyond racial norms.
Rangers just get the bonus, automatically, they don't have to make a check.
Do rangers get their favored enemy bonus against someone with racial heritage?
Do rangers get their favored enemy bonus against someone with racial heritage?
Yes.
Do rangers get their favored enemy bonus against someone with racial heritage?Yes.
Is that clarified somewhere or just the general consensus? Just curious.
Just so I understand your position, if I wanted to make a character who's legs came out of where their eyes should be, arms from where their legs should be, a tail from where each of their arms should be, and the tails had their eyes at the end, and my character walked upside down (you know, because their legs are in their head), that would be within both the RAW AND the intent of the rules?I think this is directed to me so, no. My point was that the feat Racial Heritage does allow a character to be subject to a ranger's favored enemy bonus, this i thought was well established, but since favored enemy is not supernatural or magical(as the Bane enchantment is) it does not automatically fire off on hitting a target that has not been ID'd by that ranger as belonging to their favored enemy. If your stance is you can not even make cosmetic changes to a character's appearance with Racial Heritage, than what kind of modifier would you add to the ranger's DC? This is a roundabout way of highlighting another little short coming of the Racial Heritage feat.
It was directed a Espy, I added the quote probably after you started typing.
Is that clarified somewhere or just the general consensus? Just curious.Do rangers get their favored enemy bonus against someone with racial heritage?Yes.
I think it is pretty clear just reading the two entries. I haven't asked for clarification or consensus just as have never asked for those things with being able to choose swim for skill focus.