|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prerequisites
Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat. A character can gain a feat at the same level at which he gains the prerequisite.A character can't use a feat if he loses a prerequisite, but he does not lose the feat itself. If, at a later time, he regains the lost prerequisite, he immediately regains full use of the feat that prerequisite enables.
Most of the time this comes into play when something along the lines of level drain takes away the spellcasting ability of a class, but not the associated feat the character took, or more often when a character loses a virtual feat. Note, however, there are quite a few places where a character can take up a feat that is useless to them. Take the spell focus feat. No prerequisites, so anyone can take it. If you never take a spellcasting class, it is completely useless. Same with Spell penetration.
While some feats are more useful to certain types of characters than others, and many of them have special prerequisites that must be met before they are selected, as a general rule feats represent abilities outside of the normal scope of your character's race and class.Many of them alter or enhance class abilities or soften class restrictions, while others might apply bonuses to your statistics or grant you the ability to take actions otherwise prohibited to you.These two phrases (taken from the same paragraph, even) are the heart of this discussion. Certainly racial Heritage (Kobold) would allow you to take Tail Terror, and the second seems to imply that it would allow actual use. However, it is in the benefit section of Tail Terror that its non-use becomes implicit (not explicit). It allows the character to use his tail to make a tail attack. It does NOT allow one to grow a tail, regrow a lost tail, etc. In a similar manner Draconic...
This post (back on page 2) really adds a lot to this discussion. It looks like it was posted, and no one quoted it, nor even acknowledged it. It has made a solid point.
Oops. Don't mean to intrude then.It was directed a Espy, I added the quote probably after you started typing.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.
I think that some purely cosmetic changes could and should be allowed. I vehemently protest the idea that even when combined with other feats these cosmetics should be permitted to become mechanically relevant.
|
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?
Ah, so we're back on to the "I'll disprove your statement by creating something is insanely absurd and that will prove me right!" fallacy. Otherwise known as an attempt to appeal to ridicule.
In other words, unable to come up with any real arguments on why your physical appearance set at step six cannot reflect the effects of a kobold race, you've started throwing out random things without any real argument behind them.
Because, 'clearly', A character with Kobold Genetics on somehow the same thing as whatever that thing you're trying to push is.
So now that you're also trying to beg the question, Did you or did you not create an explanation of why your character is an abyssal horror? Because unlike a human with kobold heritage, you really don't have a foot to stand on.
|
|
I think that some purely cosmetic changes could and should be allowed. I vehemently protest the idea that even when combined with other feats these cosmetics should be permitted to become mechanically relevant.
So basically, as long as a feat doesn't use a cosmetic feature as its (The feat's) benefit, its totally cool. In other words what is a cosmetic feature of a kobold (the tail) is bad for the kobold to take tail terror.
Or is it good, because that cosmetic feature wasn't cosmetic some how?
Could the same also be true for someone like a human taking prehensile hair? Because the hair up until the point of taking prehensile hair was purely cosmetic, but the moment he takes that witch's hex it is no longer just purely cosmetic. But somehow this is okay?
But somehow, taking racial heritage at step 4 of character creation and specifically calling out that you do have a tail at step six, to allow for the use of tail terror during play is bad.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, the heart of the FAQ is this. For a Kobold, is having a tail an "effect related to race" covered by the racial heritage feat?
If yes, then racial heritage can give you a non-functional tail and Tail Terror can give you a tail attack.
In the absence of hard rules, common sense dictates that your appearance is an effect related to race. By all descriptions a non-functional tail is part of the appearance of a kobold. I cannot see any RAW reason to disallow someone with Racial Heritage(Kobold) from having a kobold's tail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lights incense at the altar of the rules team and begins summoning ritual.
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?Ah, so we're back on to the "I'll disprove your statement by creating something is insanely absurd and that will prove me right!" fallacy. Otherwise known as an attempt to appeal to ridicule.
In other words, unable to come up with any real arguments on why your physical appearance set at step six cannot reflect the effects of a kobold race, you've started throwing out random things without any real argument behind them.
Because, 'clearly', A character with Kobold Genetics on somehow the same thing as whatever that thing you're trying to push is.
So now that you're also trying to beg the question, Did you or did you not create an explanation of why your character is an abyssal horror? Because unlike a human with kobold heritage, you really don't have a foot to stand on.
Ok, now that we agree that there is some limit beyond "choose you appearance" in Step 6 of the character creation guidelines, where do you draw the line?
|
|
I don't think it's that simple. Does a human who took Racial Heritage (elf) look like a half-elf? I shouldn't think so.
Well, the human didn't take half-elf heritage.
But he might look something like spock, or perhaps one of those pretty boys in anime? Maybe he has a curly mustache and an sensational lust for baking cookies?
Well, what races do you count as?
Ok, now that we agree that there is some limit beyond "choose you appearance" in Step 6 of the character creation guidelines, where do you draw the line?
I'm a human and I took the adopted trait, so I also count as an elf for choosing traits.
|
|
I'm a human and I took the adopted trait, so I also count as an elf for choosing traits.Well, what races do you count as?
Ok, now that we agree that there is some limit beyond "choose you appearance" in Step 6 of the character creation guidelines, where do you draw the line?
No you don't.
Benefit: As a result, you picked up a race trait from your adoptive parents and society, and may immediately select a race trait from your adoptive parents' race.
Unlike Racial Heritage it does not say you count as the race. Just that you can pick up a race trait from the parent's qualified race.
Unlike Racial Heritage it does not say you count as the race. Just that you can pick up a race trait from the parent's qualified race.
Racial heritage says you count as a race for the purpose of effects. It had just as much bearing on appearance as adopted.
Effects of my race do not include appearance.
sure it does. My race's general physical characteristics can be found in many places.
I am not waivering, I do not recognize that effects affecting a race = that race. Races have several attributes, some of which are effects. Appearance is an attribute of a race, but it is not an effect.
Perhaps you could show me in the rules rules where it says "appearance is an effect of a race"?
When you ask your opponent to prove a negative, you admit your position is indefensible.
When you ask your opponent to prove a negative, you admit your position is indefensible.Well then, lucky for me, you've asked me several times to prove a negative before I asked you to prove anything.
Not really, I have asked you several times to prove your own affirmative statement that racial heritage grants you the ability to have a tail. You have been unable to do so, and have repeatedly tried to reframe the argument.
I, in fact, cannot be asking you to prove a negative because my default position on this matter is in the negative.
|
|
When you ask your opponent to prove a negative, you admit your position is indefensible.Well then, lucky for me, you've asked me several times to prove a negative before I asked you to prove anything.
Not really, I have asked you several times to prove your own affirmative statement that racial heritage grants you the ability to have a tail. You have been unable to do so, and have repeatedly tried to reframe the argument.
I, in fact, cannot be asking you to prove a negative because my default position on this matter is in the negative.
Show me in the rules where is says your physical description is defined by race, and then I'll show you in the rules were Racial heritage defines your appearance.
Cause you've been telling me to show you where it isn't defined by race. A Negative. Which is your default position.
I have only ever asked you to show me where it says racial heritage grants you a tail. As part of that I asked you to show me where appearance is an effect of race. Those are both affirmative statements. I am asking you to prove in the affirmative.
I'm not asking you to prove my position, in asking you to prove you own.
Is this still a thing? This is still a thing, isn't it.
|
|
I have only ever asked you to show me where it says racial heritage grants you a tail. As part of that I asked you to show me where appearance is an effect of race. Those are both affirmative statements. I am asking you to prove in the affirmative.
I'm not asking you to prove my position, in asking you to prove you own.
Show me were it is an attribute of the race.
Show me were it is an attribute of the race.I have only ever asked you to show me where it says racial heritage grants you a tail. As part of that I asked you to show me where appearance is an effect of race. Those are both affirmative statements. I am asking you to prove in the affirmative.
I'm not asking you to prove my position, in asking you to prove you own.
I don't need to. The game is based on permissive rules. ie. the rules tell you what you may do. In some cases, for clarity, they may specify something in particular that you may not do. That however doesn't change the base assumption of the ruleset. If you wish to do something you must show that you are permitted to do so.
You want to grow a tail. Great. Show me the feat that says "You grow a tail." Failing that, demonstrate that "Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race," means "You grow a tail."
You have been unable to do so.
|
|
Show me were it is an attribute of the race.I have only ever asked you to show me where it says racial heritage grants you a tail. As part of that I asked you to show me where appearance is an effect of race. Those are both affirmative statements. I am asking you to prove in the affirmative.
I'm not asking you to prove my position, in asking you to prove you own.
I don't need to. The game is based on permissive rules. ie. the rules tell you what you may do. In some cases, for clarity, they may specify something in particular that you may not do. That however doesn't change the base assumption of the ruleset. If you wish to do something you must show that you are permitted to do so.
You want to grow a tail. Great. Show me the feat that says "You grow a tail." Failing that, demonstrate that "Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race," means "You grow a tail."
You have been unable to do so.
Ah great, then you agree that Racial heritage can cause effects in your appearance.
You have yet to show me that your appearance is an attribute of your race.
Again though, we are at a standstill. Race effects appearance.
Stand still to what end? Who are you trying to convince? No PFS DM will allow you to do what you are describing. So that leaves home games. If you are a DM then do whatever you want. If you are a player trying to convince a DM, it isn't working out for you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh? What?
First, there is no PFS Boon as of yet (I still hold out hope for the future) to play a Kobold.
So you statement should be "No PFS DM would be able to allow the play of a Kobold race for their character."
So, the argument goes on, even common sense seems to take a back seat as a lone wolf becomes a small pack of nit picking the "rules" to get something that simply isn't there to take.
A feat (Tail Terror) is made for a particular race (Kobold), in that race's particular Player Companion book, to use with a limb that race usually has (Tail).
That is great for a Kobold.
Now another race (Human,Half-Elf or Half-Orc) takes Racial Heritage for that race (Kobold) and takes a feat for that race as ascribed in the Racial Heritage feat (Tail Terror) to make use of a limb that they actually don't have (Tail).
Now, common sense says no tail, no slap.
Others are thinking that this feat combo somehow gives an extra appendage where one wasn't before because a tail is needed to use it. It does not.
If you want to use this feat, endeavor to have some way to have a tail, either by race, class feature, or other means.
Don't just say "Oh, that? It was there before, I just had it in my pants."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of like to think the best argument for people saying a feat automatically gives you something is to refer them to the Vestigial Arm thread that we had...
The RAI is that the Limb cannot be used to make attacks above what you would have as if you didn't have the arm; this was FAQ'd, and that was the result of the FAQ.
In this case, the Discovery specifically stated exceptions of granted limbs and making attacks outside your maximum (although the former wasn't clearly written enough).
In addition, arguing Devil's Advocate, the feat in question (Tail Terror) enhances a limb that a creature may already have, granting an attack with that limb.
If the officially drawn depictions of the races aren't obvious enough as to their description and limbs present, then we either have blind people, or it's a bunch of munchkins trying to cheat the system. If it's the former, then I pity your disability and wish the best for you. If it's the latter, then what you're after is something that any sensible person would disallow in the first place, and you're better off getting your kicks elsewhere.
Humans don't have Tails normally, why should we all of a sudden give them Tails now, if only to please some concept that is not only inefficient, but makes no sense whatsoever to allow?
By all means, when I see Humans walking around with real, living Tails, I'll allow this feat combination. I'll also give Wing Attacks to Pigs who have access to Fly, because, you know, they totally have those limbs now.
Humans don't have Tails normally, why should we all of a sudden give them Tails now,
Because they spent a feat on it, which gives them the characteristics of another race, one of which is a tail.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Take feat = count as other race for feat qualification.
Take feat requiring tail = count as having tail = get tail.
|
|
Humans don't have Tails normally, why should we all of a sudden give them Tails now,Because they spent a feat on it, which gives them the characteristics of another race, one of which is a tail.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Take feat = count as other race for feat qualification.
Take feat requiring tail = count as having tail = get tail.
You math is off. It isn't an eighties Pentium chip where 2+2=5.
It is...
Take a feat that gives an attack with a tail + having a tail = get a tail slap.
Take a feat that gives an attack with a tail + not having a tail = no tail slap.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Humans don't have Tails normally, why should we all of a sudden give them Tails now,Because they spent a feat on it, which gives them the characteristics of another race, one of which is a tail.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Take feat = count as other race for feat qualification.
Take feat requiring tail = count as having tail = get tail.
You math is off. It isn't an eighties Pentium chip where 2+2=5.
It is...
Take a feat that gives an attack with a tail + having a tail = get a tail slap.
Take a feat that gives an attack with a tail + not having a tail = no tail slap.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
The same difficulty that you can't understand about the people who think that since there is no such thing as a tailed racial trait like humans get a bonus feat and orcs get ferocity they are both equally tailed for the purposes of taking the tail terror feat. We see things differently from you.. The world is a wonderful place like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So if I take RH Tengu and long nose form how large of a beak do I have now?