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


Rules Questions

301 to 350 of 1,170 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

I've got a spine.


Darche Schneider wrote:
I've got a spine.

You can have a limb deformity of a limb you already have, but you can't have a limb deformity if the limb does not exist. It's like imaginary friends all over again.

"Hey everyone, meet my new friend Bob!"

"Who? Where's this Bob guy?"

"Why, he's right here my good friend! He says it's nice to meet you!"

"I didn't hear anything, and I don't see another person. I see you, but I don't see this 'Bob' character."

"That's because he's an imaginary friend. I made him up!"

"Oh...Well then..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So you're telling me humans don't have spines?

A tail isn't an arm or leg. A tail is an extended portion of the spine. While in embryonic form, the human has a tail, and the bones that make up a tail usually do get fused into a 'tail bone'. But this is the part the the spine that our deformity exists thus creating a tail.

Yes, its quite a weak tail isn't it? but Luckily Tail terror strengthens the tail.


Darche Schneider wrote:

So you're telling me humans don't have spines?

A tail isn't an arm or leg. A tail is an extended portion of the spine. While in embryonic form, the human has a tail, and the bones that make up a tail usually do get fused into a 'tail bone'. But this is the part the the spine that our deformity exists thus creating a tail.

Yes, its quite a weak tail isn't it? but Luckily Tail terror strengthens the tail.

This "extended portion of the spine" is what we refer to as Tails. Which Humans, even infant Humans, do not possess. Several animals possess them; our ancestors of genetics did at one point, but we evolved to remove this crux, as it was a tool of equilibrium and balance that, as amuputated-tail animals had to deal with, eventually grew to adapt beyond such a concept. We have "Tail Bones," but this was from a pre-evolutionary state in our species' existence. We can argue that such isn't the case in this game of Ye Olden Fantasy and Magic in terms of realism, but when the game is about make-believe and fantasy, not to mention the vast list of rules implemented, the latter takes place over the former, especially when the issue we're discussing is mechanics. Not realism.

You're making the argument that a Spine and a Tail are the same thing. They're connected, true, but only for animals that have them, which Humans, by definition of both game and illustration, do not possess. They are treated as separate entities, for game terms and in real life. We do not say "Spine" and "Extended Spine," we say "Spine" and "Tail" to differentiate between the two limbs. By this logic of symbiotics, every creature with a Spine can make a Tail Attack.

Except, a Spine isn't an eligible limb to make a Tail Attack with by the rules; in fact, as far as I know, a Spine isn't a limb you can make an attack with period, barring Unarmed Strike. I also can't detach my Spine, or lower it to appear as if I have a Tail, because then it no longer becomes a Spine; I then also become a pile of pudding flesh and bones because my Spine, which became my Tail, is no longer keeping my Humanoid shape. Fact is, we're not arguing realism or intent here; we're arguing what the Book says and what the Book allows. Intent of the rules is a whole different ballgame, and if that's the case, then throw down the gauntlet in a different thread; I'll gladly debate Intent of creature limbs and methods to acquire usage of them, but this is a thread regarding the Rules of creature limbs and methods to acquire usage of them. Not Intent. Therefore, the RAW has reign, not the RAI.

If we really are going to argue a Human having a tail, then I can definitely tell you that it is hardly considered a "deformity," since that would imply it's a negative feature to have; a hunchback would be considered more of a deformity because backs aren't normally that way, and when they are that way, it's a negative impact on the body and its functions.

Tails, on the other hand, have proven very vital to several creatures, as I have stated with our species' pre-evolution ancestors needing them to help create balance and equilibrium with their body and mental instinct, so not only is it inaccurate to call them a "deformity," but it also more accurate to call it an "adaptation" or "mutation" created for increased chances of survival, something which doesn't qualify under your "Mother of Beasts" trait or "Misbegotten" flaw. (Unless you want to reference the RAW, in which case I could be wrong, as I am unfamiliar with these abilities, and am only going based upon what you have stated both subjects are capable of.)

**EDIT** Statement clarifications and minor grammar fixes.

Grand Lodge

Darche Schneider wrote:
Deformities cover a wide range of deformities.

This exactly why I suggested something like the Deformed trait, to be used in conjunction with the feat combo in question.

You spend a trait, but it makes the whole thing a lot easier to swallow for DMs.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Darche Schneider wrote:
I've got a spine.

You can have a limb deformity of a limb you already have, but you can't have a limb deformity if the limb does not exist. It's like imaginary friends all over again.

"Oh...Well then..."

Wait... wait... wait... So a vestigial conjoined fetus isn't an acceptable deformity because it grows one out of you rather then modifying your existing fetus ? Why isnt a tail a deformity that modifies your ass ? Neither Deformed or Misbegotten say anything about deformed limbs they just say deformity.

Granted these are from the mark of evil feat but here is a list of some words associated with 'deformity' in the game

Common deformities caused by this attack include cloven hooves, horns, forked tongues, vestigial limbs like wings and tails, organs inexplicably forming on the outside of the skin, additional (and useless) eyes, and skin that hardens into pus-weeping plates.

Thats so far the only list of deformities not tied to some critters statblock.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
This "extended portion of the spine" is what we refer to as Tails. Which Humans, even infant Humans, do not possess.

human genetics still contain the information for tail development. FACT: some humans still grow tails TODAY. they are very weak and underdeveloped tails.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You're making the argument that a Spine and a Tail are the same thing.

no one is arguing that.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
We do not say "Spine" and "Extended Spine," we say "Spine" and "Tail" to differentiate between the two limbs. By this logic of symbiotics, every creature with a Spine can make a Tail Attack.

we also have a thing we distinguish as our coccyx. it is the makings of a tail that our evolution has tried to tuck away. that doesn't mean human development never derails and humans aren't born with tails.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Except, a Spine isn't an eligible limb to make a Tail Attack with by the rules;

"how can you be so obtuse? is it on purpose?"

he's not arguing that a spine is a limb with which one can make a tail attack. he's arguing that humans have all the necessities to accidentally have a spine. when you toss in the racial heritage feat, which (at least if you have it at character creation) opens up the relevant options from your other race when you do your description, there's no question (to us) that you should be able to have a tail. as the tail listed in the appearance of a kobold is part of it's appearance which is a physiological effect related to race, you have that option when designing your character.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Fact is, we're not arguing realism or intent here; we're arguing what the Book says and what the Book allows. Intent of the rules is a whole different ballgame, and if that's the case, then throw down the gauntlet in a different thread; I'll gladly debate Intent of creature limbs and methods to acquire usage of them, but this is a thread regarding the Rules of creature limbs and methods to acquire usage of them. Not Intent. Therefore, the RAW has reign, not the RAI.

the RAW are written in words and all words must be interpreted. how you interpret what the words mean, is based (at least in part) by what you expect them to mean, by what you think the author intends.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
If we really are going to argue a Human having a tail, then I can definitely tell you that it is hardly considered a "deformity," since that would imply it's a negative feature to have; a hunchback would be considered more of a deformity because backs aren't normally that way, and when they are that way, it's a negative impact on the body and its functions.

social reception has an effect on natural selection. if animals don't look the way other members of the species expect, they are generally rejected. most humans would consider a tail a deformity. that it might actually be useful to some animals is irrelevant. for humans, it is a deformity.


@Cuatroespada:

Except he kind of is. He says that a Tail is a part of a Spine, therefore they are the same limb, since they are directly connected to become one. They're attached, and cannot be separated unless they are forcibly cut or torn apart. The reasoning behind his claim is that the Spine can create the "deformity" of a tail, therefore the Spine is the Tail, and thusly the Spine (which is also the Tail) can make the attack. But the Book doesn't label them as the same limb; because they aren't the same limb. If they were the same limb, they'd have the same meaning, same application in sentence structure, and medical problems that go along with them. FACT: They don't. Cutting a Tail off, which has happened before, has caused mental and physical instability (constantly falling on your face, being delirious due to uncontrollable physical movement, etc). Cutting a Spine off/out would leave the body unable to support itself, and thusly fall into a pile of fleshy goop and bones. Two completely different effects (in both severity and type).

Since we have evolved beyond the concept of Tails (hence why we have Tail Bones now instead of just Tails, symbolizing our life as it once was), it's safe to say that Humans aren't supposed to have Tails anyway.

The Spine and Tail are connected by sinew and marrow; that's never been debated, several animals in both the book and in real life have this. But Humans are animals that have evolved to no longer have it, since lacking a tail when it has served as part of its equilibrium has caused its failure in the realms of Charles Darwin and Nature. (Ironically enough, this is actually an inconsistency with the book's Humans in comparison to how they are today; little to no change whatsoever.)

And it does "derail," other times it "re-rails" and gets into something more than what it once was; those are called Mutations (if they are a positive influence, which Tails can be), or Defects (which people commonly mistranslate Cancer not to be; people call it a Disease, but it technically isn't. Back on topic..). As far as I'm concerned, developing a secondary, functional limb, as a Human Being, would be very welcome. Does it affect their Charismatic Nature? Perhaps, since the Mutation isn't Universal among the race, and some may look down upon it as Modern-Day Racists do, and others may view it as a sign of ancestry and respect it; but when we're talking about as far back in the past as this game is set on, it's hardly uncommon to find such strange "creatures" lurking in towns or in caverns. There's Owlbears for crying out loud. That makes Ligers seem tame (which, by the way, are defective due that, as far as I know, their reproduction is infertile, similar to most, if not all, Human hermaphrodites).

Was it done at Character Creation? Then perhaps it's more feasible to allow it, assuming the GM approves; which chances are, he won't for similar (if not the exact same) reasons I'm giving. Besides that, Racial Heritage is not an ability that expressly grants limbs. Granting limbs is a powerful feature, regardless of source or capability, considering the base uses of the limb alone; tails retrieving items for you, extra arms to hold and use consumable items at your convenience, etc. (This also helps my case of these limbs not being "deformities," and again more along the lines of Mutations.) Simply stating flat-out that a Feat can give you something as useful as that without it expressly stating that it does makes no sense.

By this logic, every character should start off with Holy Avengers as weapons. It doesn't come out and say it, but characters get starting equipment. Since a Holy Avenger is a type of equipment, characters can start off with it.

Except they don't, because it's non-sensible to the purpose of the game, and doesn't expressly say they do.

In addition, consider genetics; just because I have the genes for something doesn't mean that I automatically am considered to be affected by that something. This is what originates the term "Carriers;" people who possess the gene(s) (generally negative), but aren't actually affected by the gene(s). So back to the example, I can have the genes to possess a tail, but I am not affected by the genes to possess a tail, hence why I do not have one.

Yes, they're written for us to intend by the hormones and other chemicals our bodies create or take in to comprehend every day life. But my point is that there are no words to intend the possibility of growing a tail from a feat, whose best description regarding something that is not classified (or written up) as an effect, is referring to the "blood of a non-human ancestor," which barely entails the possibility of growing limbs.

Again, my view is that as a Human, if you find an ability that concisely states you grow a tail and is as functional as any other tail that any regular creature has, then fine, you can make a Tail Attack as a Human. (To be honest, even a prosthetic Tail attached to your rear would work just as well.)

But Racial Heritage makes no claim of being able to grow limbs, a powerful effect in its own right, something that should not be taken lightly (especially after the character is created, since that's a thing too). Limbs aren't really stated as effects unless it's something that the subject in question normally doesn't have (or is done in addition to what the creature has for limbs currently), and until they are, Racial Heritage's "Anything" clause doesn't really have much ground to apply.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


And it does "derail," other times it "re-rails" and gets into something more than what it once was; those are called Mutations (if they are a positive influence, which Tails can be), or Defects (which people commonly mistranslate Cancer not to be; people call it a Disease, but...

Um.. actually the definition of disease is any condition which causes a cessation of Homeostasis, at least, according to my medical terminology class it is. Cancer definitely goes and jerks around with Homeostasis. If you want to get super technical a broken arm is a disease. Not that it has much baring on the argument but it does illustrate how easily the same words and ideas can have very different definition depending on whos using them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We could just wait for the PDT to get to the FAQ.


VargrBoartusk wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


And it does "derail," other times it "re-rails" and gets into something more than what it once was; those are called Mutations (if they are a positive influence, which Tails can be), or Defects (which people commonly mistranslate Cancer not to be; people call it a Disease, but...
Um.. actually the definition of disease is any condition which causes a cessation of Homeostasis, at least, according to my medical terminology class it is. Cancer definitely goes and jerks around with Homeostasis. If you want to get super technical a broken arm is a disease. Not that it has much baring on the argument but it does illustrate how easily the same words and ideas can have very different definition depending on whos using them.

If we're going with "anything from the norm" as the definition for a Disease, then basic bodily functions that differ due to content and results, such as growth, digestion, etc. are all diseases as well. But that doesn't make any sense.

In addition, I made that as an off-topic thing for an example, since Cancer is defined as nothing more than a cell reproducing irregularly (over and over again) and is not doing the job the DNA registered it to do originally. Hence why I called it a "Defect," which refers to it being a Negative Mutation.

Back on topic, I'm with Cheapy; re-stating our arguments over and over again is doing nothing. I'll wait for the Devs to say something on the matter.


the bottom line here is that the RAW say "effects related to race" which would include phisiology, but for no apparent reason you wish to exclude physiology because you apparently don't realize how many rules of this game are implicit because language isn't as explicit as you'd like it to be.

basically your reasons for excluding physiology are the same as my reasons for including it. our interpretations of the authors' intents. i think the main intent is and has always been to create a fun game for people to play. there is nothing in the RAW that explicitly excludes appearance and physiology from "effects related to race".

let's also take a moment to consider some implications of your interpretation that things that aren't explicitly stated in the RAW don't work. so Golarion and pathfinder in general do not and, more importantly, can not have bunnies? there's no stat block for them so if a GM mentions a bunny, he's house ruling and might even be a munchkin since he's interpreting a world to have bunnies that was clearly intended not to (or they would have mentioned it because obviously they have the time and energy to think of EVERYTHING).


Cheapy wrote:
We could just wait for the PDT to get to the FAQ.

I hope they do. PDT account has been pretty quiet lately. No doubt partly due to the playtest, but I also imagine that less FAQ's are coming in since they disallowed "FAQ request" from thread titles.


cuatroespada wrote:
the bottom line here is that the RAW say "effects related to race" which would include phisiology, but for no apparent reason you wish to exclude physiology because you apparently don't realize how many rules of this game are implicit because language isn't as explicit as you'd like it to be.

Funny that you bring up language. Language is my main reason for excluding physiology as an effect of race. No one in the real world (except the clumsiest of the linguistically clumsy) would refer to physiological properties as an "effect" of race. That's because they're not "effects", they're inherent characteristics.

Saying that physiology is an effect of race is the same as saying that a roof is an effect of being a house, roundness is an effect of being a circle, conductivity is an effect of being metal. Etcetera, etcetera.


i hope they are still doing them, the responses from Paizo makes the game feel so... special. Plus i want to know about the tails and Long Nose Form (someone mentioned that feat and i've been working up a tengu heritage barbarian ever since.) ;P


Forseti wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
the bottom line here is that the RAW say "effects related to race" which would include phisiology, but for no apparent reason you wish to exclude physiology because you apparently don't realize how many rules of this game are implicit because language isn't as explicit as you'd like it to be.

Funny that you bring up language. Language is my main reason for excluding physiology as an effect of race. No one in the real world (except the clumsiest of the linguistically clumsy) would refer to physiological properties as an "effect" of race. That's because they're not "effects", they're inherent characteristics.

Saying that physiology is an effect of race is the same as saying that a roof is an effect of being a house, roundness is an effect of being a circle, conductivity is an effect of being metal. Etcetera, etcetera.

I am not following, effect as in "a state caused by"? "I look Asian as an effect of my Mongolian heritage" that sounds correct to me but i not no majored English... guy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know, I thought this was going to be an interesting thread, I got half-way down the first page, and went, "Nnnnnnnnnnnnope, I don't really care after-all."

Whichever side you're on in this particular argument, remember,

Quote:
basically your reasons for excluding physiology are the same as my reasons for including it. our interpretations of the authors' intents. i think the main intent is and has always been to create a fun game for people to play.

... the bolded part is ultimately correct. And, frankly, that applies to the forum, too. So enjoy! Don't hate each other or someone else's play style.

(But do feel free to discuss this very vigorously and with great passion - it may help enrich you and increase your rules mastery in ways you didn't expect!)

As this would likely never see any play at my table, however, outside of this (rather unnecessary, probably) comment, I'll allow this thread to go on and hope that someone will update me if they actually do make a FAQ or Errata about this.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Physiology?

Are we going to have a Star Trek exposition scene where the characters explain what they are doing in techno babble next?

"We are shrinking the Enterprise, and going through the Half-Orc's body so that we can infuse Midcorian energy on the tail bone, making it grow and having a tail sprout forth for him to use Tail Terror with."

"I don't know, Gordi, if the Half-Orc gets mad while we are within his skeletal structure, I am not sure if the Enterprise could take the added pressure in the bloodstream."

"We though of that, Captain! Data has an ingenious math problem that should stregthen out shields, but it will only work when we are microscopic."

slight pause...

"Make it so."

This is about as valid a reason to sprout a tail than the other explanations that have been put forth thus far.


Torbyne wrote:
Forseti wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
the bottom line here is that the RAW say "effects related to race" which would include phisiology, but for no apparent reason you wish to exclude physiology because you apparently don't realize how many rules of this game are implicit because language isn't as explicit as you'd like it to be.

Funny that you bring up language. Language is my main reason for excluding physiology as an effect of race. No one in the real world (except the clumsiest of the linguistically clumsy) would refer to physiological properties as an "effect" of race. That's because they're not "effects", they're inherent characteristics.

Saying that physiology is an effect of race is the same as saying that a roof is an effect of being a house, roundness is an effect of being a circle, conductivity is an effect of being metal. Etcetera, etcetera.

I am not following, effect as in "a state caused by"? "I look Asian as an effect of my Mongolian heritage" that sounds correct to me but i not no majored English... guy.

coincidentally i am an english major and my focus is linguistics. his argument is very prescriptive and one of the many reasons why i think dictionaries make people stupid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thaX wrote:

Physiology?

Are we going to have a Star Trek exposition scene where the characters explain what they are doing in techno babble next?

"We are shrinking the Enterprise, and going through the Half-Orc's body so that we can infuse Midcorian energy on the tail bone, making it grow and having a tail sprout forth for him to use Tail Terror with."

"I don't know, Gordi, if the Half-Orc gets mad while we are within his skeletal structure, I am not sure if the Enterprise could take the added pressure in the bloodstream."

"We though of that, Captain! Data has an ingenious math problem that should stregthen out shields, but it will only work when we are microscopic."

slight pause...

"Make it so."

This is about as valid a reason to sprout a tail than the other explanations that have been put forth thus far.

Sorry, that was a DS9 episode, not TNG


cuatroespada wrote:

the bottom line here is that the RAW say "effects related to race" which would include phisiology, but for no apparent reason you wish to exclude physiology because you apparently don't realize how many rules of this game are implicit because language isn't as explicit as you'd like it to be.

basically your reasons for excluding physiology are the same as my reasons for including it. our interpretations of the authors' intents. i think the main intent is and has always been to create a fun game for people to play. there is nothing in the RAW that explicitly excludes appearance and physiology from "effects related to race".

let's also take a moment to consider some implications of your interpretation that things that aren't explicitly stated in the RAW don't work. so Golarion and pathfinder in general do not and, more importantly, can not have bunnies? there's no stat block for them so if a GM mentions a bunny, he's house ruling and might even be a munchkin since he's interpreting a world to have bunnies that was clearly intended not to (or they would have mentioned it because obviously they have the time and energy to think of EVERYTHING).

It's not even because of how I'd like it to be. That's actually a less relevant factor to the reason of my argument. Sure, I agree with the side I argue, but just because I agree with how it should be doesn't mean that's how it is, or more importantly to this topic, how the Book has it as.

You compare how many actual effects written up in the books which expressly state additional limbs being part of the (or the actual) effect in question, in comparison to how many sub-textual effects granting additional limbs, and the amount will be X to 0, with X being the amount of effects that state the character/creature gets so and so limb(s). There is no effect in the game that does not come out and say "You get X Limb" or "You get a Y Attack," because the intent is you do not have those attacks until you either get the attack in question, or the limb for it. Period.

And now you're going to ask me "There's nothing that says Kobolds get a Tail, but we treat them as if they have that limb," because the intent they were designed with, along with their physical description, points this out. However, it is not an ability or an effect of being the race, it's a physical description (as well as illustration) of the race which comes out and says (or shows that) they have Tails. Any creature can have any limb, be it naturally grown or prosthetic, and when they have the qualified limb needed to carry out the attack, then it's allowable. I have never said you couldn't just because you were Human; I specifically said you don't have the limb to make the attack with.

You're trying to argue that a Human with Racial Heritage, that, mind you, does not expressly state they can have limbs associated with the race, which spits in the face of all other abilities whose RAW comes out and says they get so and so limb(s), can gain limbs by taking the feat, and growing them upon Character Creation. This denies any premise that taking it after Character Creation can allow characters to grow tails because it cannot alter something that is already set-in-stone in terms of natural genetic growth.

In addition, you have yet to prove that a creature's "physiology," which is by no means a defined game term, is an effect, whether it originates from Abilities, Feats, Items, what have you. There's nothing in the rules that implicits your interpretation, and when demanding something to be applicable when it does not come out and state it, burden of proof is on you; the subject otherwise doesn't do what you claim applies, since there is no proof for your case.

There is a difference between lacking a stat block for a flavorful creature compared to cheating the system for access to a limb that has yet to be a valid claim. A bunny creature can be created by following creature creation guide rules. Varying beyond those rules leads to Houseruling, which is acceptable based upon if the players are willing to keep playing the game with it in place.

Versus a very questionable chain of feat selection and lack of description to allow the growth of limbs, which is in direct contrast of other abilities that come out and state the growth of limbs? I believe the difference is not only obvious, but makes their comparison absolutely irrelevant, since the former has acceptable methods of construction and application, whereas the latter has dubious interpretations which can hardly be explained and proven true.

Again, if you want to make the claim of physiology being an effect related to race, then back it up with evidence and facts. The burden of proof is on you, as you're the one trying to claim the feat is capable of doing something beyond what's written. I remain conservative to the feat's examples, since it goes against the intent of other abilities and effects that grant limbs (and attacks in addition to that list).


thaX wrote:

Physiology?

Are we going to have a Star Trek exposition scene where the characters explain what they are doing in techno babble next?

"We are shrinking the Enterprise, and going through the Half-Orc's body so that we can infuse Midcorian energy on the tail bone, making it grow and having a tail sprout forth for him to use Tail Terror with."

"I don't know, Gordi, if the Half-Orc gets mad while we are within his skeletal structure, I am not sure if the Enterprise could take the added pressure in the bloodstream."

"We though of that, Captain! Data has an ingenious math problem that should stregthen out shields, but it will only work when we are microscopic."

slight pause...

"Make it so."

This is about as valid a reason to sprout a tail than the other explanations that have been put forth thus far.

so... you're saying that because some things are unrealistic in a fictional setting, it is silly to expect anything to be similar to the real world? because that's a terrible argument. fictional settings are as much about the similarities we assume to allow us to interpret them as they are about the differences explicitly mentioned.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
You're trying to argue that a Human with Racial Heritage, that, mind you, does not expressly state they can have limbs associated with the race, which spits in the face of all other abilities whose RAW comes out and says they get so and so limb(s), can gain limbs by taking the feat, and growing them upon Character Creation. This denies any premise that taking it after Character Creation can allow characters to grow tails because it cannot alter something that is already set-in-stone in terms of natural genetic growth.

well we can add that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a limb like a new arm with hand (which would have an effect even if the feat didn't explicitly state it of being able to manipulate things) and a limb like a tail that just sits there and literally has no function (i.e. cannot pull things out of your bags for you while you swing your two hander) without other feats and abilities. basically, i object to your argument that all limbs are created equal.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
In addition, you have yet to prove that a creature's "physiology," which is by no means a defined game term, is an effect, whether it originates from Abilities, Feats, Items, what have you. There's nothing in the rules that implicits your interpretation, and when demanding something to be applicable when it does not come out and state it, burden of proof is on you; the subject otherwise doesn't do what you claim applies, since there is no proof for your case.

in the text of the feat in question, the word "effect" is not being used as a game term. so i fail to see where you read the limitations into "effects related to race" as though effects has an explicit definition. your limitation is an assumption. i use the term physiology because it is the real world thing we would be referring to when we discuss appearance, which is a game term and still an effect related to race.

Grand Lodge

why does everyone "ass"u"me" that Humans don't have a tail?

as everyone of us do have a tail.


cuatroespada wrote:
so... you're saying that because some things are unrealistic in a fictional setting, it is silly to expect anything to be similar to the real world? because that's a terrible argument. fictional settings are as much about the similarities we assume to allow us to interpret them as they are about the differences explicitly mentioned.

Normally, I'd agree with you. But you're also contradictory; it's okay to say that Lizards have Tails, because it's physically attached to their body (or Spine, more specifically), but apparently Humans have Tails too, in this Modern Day World?

No way. Not only is that completely absurd for you to argue, considering the stance you're taking, but it holds no ground. At what point do Humans grow tails (again)? Maybe if we were assuming that Humans in the era that Pathfinder takes place in are still in the epoch that Humans still grow Tails; too bad illustrations and the physical description box demonstrates otherwise.

cuatroespada wrote:
well we can add that you refuse to acknowledge the difference between a limb like growing a new arm and hand (which would have an effect even if the feat didn't explicitly state it of being able to manipulate things) and growing a tail that just sits there and literally has no function (i.e. cannot pull things out of your bags for you while you swing your two hander) without other feats and abilities. basically, i object to your argument that all limbs are equal.

Except by RAW, the subject we're debating here, the Tail has no mechanical benefit; it never has, and it never will, when it's all by itself, especially since it actually takes feats and other abilities for a Tail to have a mechanical benefit, despite how minor it can be.

You're being too realistic regarding the Tail limb; the rule mechanics are abstract of full realism, so trying to apply full-blown realism to a system that wasn't designed for it is not only an uphill battle for you, but we run into many more problems and get stuck on something for the longest time before we could even possibly move on from it. (Look at how long we've been discussing this silly topic! For days, if not weeks and months!)

Back on topic, the choices from the Core for designing characters assumes that PC's are Medium-sized, Humanoid-like creatures with basic Humanoid limbs; hands, arms, feet, legs, torso, and head. It also assumes basic functions of these limbs, such as manipulation, holding, moving, etc. Similar limbs, such as Hoofs, Horns, Claws, etc. fit into the appropriate limbs for natural attacks. Since a Tail is it's own limb, without anything being applicable from basic Humanoid limbs to it (since it's not on that general list of basic Humanoid limbs), it's conservative to say it does nothing, because it wasn't designed to do anything in the first place. That's why there are feats for Tails; to allow people to do something with the limb, whereas before they couldn't do that action with it.

On top of which, it's actually fair to treat all limbs with the same precedent, considering they must all follow the same rules which they are applied to (in real life, the laws of Physics; in the game, the RAW/RAI); it'd actually be unfair to give other limbs more than what it says for them to normally get (or not get) because then what would normally be a limb does more than what a limb was originally designed to do.

cuatroespada wrote:
in the feat in question "effect" is not being used as a game term. so i fail to see where you read the limitations into "effects related to race" as though effects has an explicit definition. your limitation is an assumption. i use the term physiology because it is the real world thing we would be referring to when we discuss appearance, which is a game term and still an effect related to race.

At what point is "effect" not being used as a game term? Does it contradict the game term's definition in its application? Is it referring to some other game term its application more closely resembles?

The description says "effects related to race"; this would entail abilities, traits, and other such things granted by selecting the race in question.

It is, but just because it's a game term does not make it an effect. Is AC an effect? What about DC, HP, etc.? Are these "effects" too?

You still have yet to prove that having a tail is an ability or trait or other similar subject, and until you do, the Racial Heritage feat cannot grant what you say it does, because it does not fall under the examples listed within, as well as the precedents of limbs cited in the Hardcovers.


Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

So, Tail Terror does nothing for kobolds?

Kobolds are specifically described as having tails.
Not in the rules.

Incorrect

A simple text search shows 23 references of tail found on the paizo PRD page the first being under the the paragraph titled 'Physical Description'.

The racial heritage trait states 'The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.'

If we allow that you inherit bloodlines from your family for a sorcerer why not a tail. What's the harm?

I am not commenting on if a tail is desirable but I have seen similar builds around bite attacks etc. None of this is game-breaking, it's a storm in teacup.


If physiological characteristics are to be considered an effect of race, and because of that, one of the things affected by the Racial Heritage feat, how do we deal with conflicting characteristics?

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

That sentence doesn't at all imply that we can choose to forego the human characteristic in favor of what the heritage race brings to the table. You count as both.

Merfolk heritage: legs or a fishtail?
Ettin heritage: one or two heads?
Athach heritage: two or three arms?
Tengu heritage: hair or feathers?


lastblacknight wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

So, Tail Terror does nothing for kobolds?

Kobolds are specifically described as having tails.
Not in the rules.

Incorrect

A simple text search shows 23 references of tail found on the paizo PRD page the first being under the the paragraph titled 'Physical Description'.

The racial heritage trait states 'The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.'

If we allow that you inherit bloodlines from your family for a sorcerer why not a tail. What's the harm?

I am not commenting on if a tail is desirable but I have seen similar builds around bite attacks etc. None of this is game-breaking, it's a storm in teacup.

He's trying to argue that the "Description" section of a Bestiary entry does not contain rules, only fluff.

Except that's not said anywhere. The description section is rules. It's not the section that contains numbers used in combat, but it's rules. Ankhegs burrow with their legs and mandibles. Driders are created from the body of a drow. All xills are female.

The game makes no distinction between "hard rules" and "optional fluff", officially. Obviously a reasonable person, especially a GM, can understand what can more readily be changed, or ignored, or adjusted, and stay within the spirit of the creature as written, but if you're going to play the RAW-card, everything in a bestiary entry is a rule.

Kobolds have tails, because their bestiary entry says they do. Humans do not have tails. There have been real life humans with birth defects that result in a tail-like growth, but that does not mean that humans, in general, have them. There have been people born without one or both ears, but that doesn't change the fact that humans have two ears.


Bizbag wrote:
lastblacknight wrote:
VargrBoartusk wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
RJGrady wrote:

So, Tail Terror does nothing for kobolds?

Kobolds are specifically described as having tails.
Not in the rules.

Incorrect

A simple text search shows 23 references of tail found on the paizo PRD page the first being under the the paragraph titled 'Physical Description'.

The racial heritage trait states 'The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.'

If we allow that you inherit bloodlines from your family for a sorcerer why not a tail. What's the harm?

I am not commenting on if a tail is desirable but I have seen similar builds around bite attacks etc. None of this is game-breaking, it's a storm in teacup.

He's trying to argue that the "Description" section of a Bestiary entry does not contain rules, only fluff.

Except that's not said anywhere. The description section is rules. It's not the section that contains numbers used in combat, but it's rules. Ankhegs burrow with their legs and mandibles. Driders are created from the body of a drow. All xills are female.

The game makes no distinction between "hard rules" and "optional fluff", officially. Obviously a reasonable person, especially a GM, can understand what can more readily be changed, or ignored, or adjusted, and stay within the spirit of the creature as written, but if you're going to play the RAW-card, everything in a bestiary entry is a rule.

Kobolds have tails, because their bestiary entry says they do. Humans do not have tails. There have been real life humans with birth defects that result in a tail-like growth, but that does not mean that humans, in general, have them. There have been people born without one or both ears, but that doesn't change the fact that humans have two ears.

I remember a similiar argument being made about the bastard sword. In the end the devs ruled the description was part of the rules and not just fluff.


Forseti wrote:

If physiological characteristics are to be considered an effect of race, and because of that, one of the things affected by the Racial Heritage feat, how do we deal with conflicting characteristics?

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

That sentence doesn't at all imply that we can choose to forego the human characteristic in favor of what the heritage race brings to the table. You count as both.

someone already said this, but that's similar to arguing that you don't have the option of being bald because humans aren't described that way. you select your appearance from a pool of options that expands to include your racial heritage.

Forseti wrote:
Merfolk heritage: legs or a fishtail?

either. you still don't have a swim speed automatically, so if you want to look more merfolk than human, have fun.

Forseti wrote:
Ettin heritage: one or two heads?

either. you still don't get superior two weapon fighting automatically, so if you want to be a guy with two heads, have fun.

Forseti wrote:
Athach heritage: two or three arms?

either. but like the kobold tail, it is weak and/or underdeveloped until you have some other effect that is dependent on you having a third arm because of your Athach heritage.

Forseti wrote:
Tengu heritage: hair or feathers?

honestly? either of course. who cares if you want to be covered in feathers, or hair, or have feather FOR hair?


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I remember a similiar argument being made about the bastard sword. In the end the devs ruled the description was part of the rules and not just fluff.

Ah right. The bastard sword is 4 feet long, a longsword is between 3.25 and 4 feet long.. A bigger longsword can be wielded at -2 pen, and goes over the 4 feet length... but enough of that.

If fluff is rules.. When is fluff fluff? Like if I wanted to have a flip razor and use the dagger stats.. Am I allowed to do that? Or are daggers now automatically a certain way?

It becomes a rather dangerous road of RAI, over what was initially RAW.

Because RAW. Absolute RAW, Racial Heritage and Tail Terror does grant a tail attack. However, we take a step back and start down the path of RAI. And RAI tells us that humans don't have tails. Tail bones are not tails.

You all can make up whatever the heck you want, but until RAW there is a Half-kobold Race, there is no Half-kobold race from taking a feat that its only purpose is to give you the ability to count as another race for spells and favored enemy.

It all comes down to a general consensus of what RAI is RAW. If its widely accepted a RAI is RAW then its RAW unless the general consensus says otherwise. This is why races that do not mention hair, cannot use it unless its popularly believed they do have it, even though it isn't in the description of the race. Why races that do not mention tails do not have them.


Quote:
Because RAW. Absolute RAW, Racial Heritage and Tail Terror does grant a tail attack. However, we take a step back and start down the path of RAI. And RAI tells us that humans don't have tails. Tail bones are not tails.

Close, but not quite. Some of us don't think we have to step back into RAI. RH+TT grants a tail attack, yes. However, you can't make an attack you are otherwise entitled to if you don't have the merchandise. If I take Weapon Focus: longsword, I get +1 to attack with longswords, but if I don't have a longsword or i can't attack with it for some reason, I can't use the feat. This feat combo is valid, but the character cannot make use of it, as humans do not have tails and RH does nothing but qualify you as a member of that race for game effects; it does not make any mention of altering physical characteristics.


Akutabe Azazel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I remember a similiar argument being made about the bastard sword. In the end the devs ruled the description was part of the rules and not just fluff.

Ah right. The bastard sword is 4 feet long, a longsword is between 3.25 and 4 feet long.. A bigger longsword can be wielded at -2 pen, and goes over the 4 feet length... but enough of that.

If fluff is rules.. When is fluff fluff? Like if I wanted to have a flip razor and use the dagger stats.. Am I allowed to do that? Or are daggers now automatically a certain way?

It becomes a rather dangerous road of RAI, over what was initially RAW.

Because RAW. Absolute RAW, Racial Heritage and Tail Terror does grant a tail attack. However, we take a step back and start down the path of RAI. And RAI tells us that humans don't have tails. Tail bones are not tails.

You all can make up whatever the heck you want, but until RAW there is a Half-kobold Race, there is no Half-kobold race from taking a feat that its only purpose is to give you the ability to count as another race for spells and favored enemy.

It all comes down to a general consensus of what RAI is RAW. If its widely accepted a RAI is RAW then its RAW unless the general consensus says otherwise. This is why races that do not mention hair, cannot use it unless its popularly believed they do have it, even though it isn't in the description of the race. Why races that do not mention tails do not have them.

Fluff is fluff when it has no mechanical impact to the game. If I want to be some purple-haired guy, and it has no impact in the game besides flavoring the character how I want it to look in terms of some sort of theatrical fantasy movie playing in my head, then it's safe to say it's a fluff feature.

But when we get into a physical description actually telling what sort of figure a creature has, tactics a creature employs, etc. That's when we get into the "description serves as rules" front. The former tells us what sort of physiology we can expect to face, the latter tells us if the creature can make usage of said physiology, etc.

To expand upon your last paragraph, there are illustrations of humans possessing hair; showing official game illustrations of example creatures of a given race opposite to what's written (in addition, compared to what they are most similar to in the real world) is a (double) contradictory message being sent. Of course, there is no official illustrations depicting Humans having Tails, especially not through obtaining the Racial Heritage feat.


Though, to be fair, there is also no entry of humans having a racial heritage of something else.


cuatroespada wrote:
Forseti wrote:

If physiological characteristics are to be considered an effect of race, and because of that, one of the things affected by the Racial Heritage feat, how do we deal with conflicting characteristics?

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

That sentence doesn't at all imply that we can choose to forego the human characteristic in favor of what the heritage race brings to the table. You count as both.

someone already said this, but that's similar to arguing that you don't have the option of being bald because humans aren't described that way. you select your appearance from a pool of options that expands to include your racial heritage.

You seem to be confusing "anatomy" and "appearance". All the appearance choices that come with being human conform to the human anatomy. Having no hair, for example.

cuatroespada wrote:
Forseti wrote:
Merfolk heritage: legs or a fishtail?
either. you still don't have a swim speed automatically, so if you want to look more merfolk than human, have fun.

Having legs is not an appearance option. Having thin, thick, stumpy legs, or being bow-legged, those are appearance options. Having them at all is a defining characteristic of being human. Similarly, the coloration of the scales and the shape of the tail fin are appearance options, while having the lower body of a fish at all is a defining characteristic of being merfolk.

I could elaborate similarly on the other examples.

If you consider characteristics like these to be "effects" of race, you'll run into unresolvable conflicts. If having legs is an "effect" of being human, you'll have legs. If having a fish tail is an "effect" of being merfolk, you'll have that fish tail. Ignoring either one would break the rule set out by the feat, just like ignoring one of the races for the purpose of a ranger's favored enemies would.

The feat can't make sense if basic anatomy is considered an effect of race.


How about this question.

What about something like a human, being grippili related, to take bogborn alchemist, which says it can take
A bogborn alchemist can select the toxic skin grippli racial trait in place of an alchemical discovery.

the racial trait being;
Toxic Skin (Ex) Once per day as a swift action, a grippli can create a poison that can be applied to a weapon or delivered as a touch attack. Alternatively, the grippli can smear the poison on its own body as a standard action, affecting the first creature to hit it with an unarmed strike or natural weapon. The poison loses its potency after 1 hour. The grippli is immune to its own poison. This racial trait replaces swamp stride and camouflage. Grippli Poison: Skin or weapon—contact or injury; save Fort DC 10 + 1/2 the grippli's Hit Dice plus its Constitution modifier; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1d2 Dexterity damage; cure 1 save.

Would this work fine or is it also something people are bothered by? it seems different than 'automatically getting a tail' this seems like it's becoming a class ability not a intrisic "magically there fluff or not' thing.
Thoughts on this? Since this is a different pathway to something similar


Forseti wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
Forseti wrote:

If physiological characteristics are to be considered an effect of race, and because of that, one of the things affected by the Racial Heritage feat, how do we deal with conflicting characteristics?

"You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race."

That sentence doesn't at all imply that we can choose to forego the human characteristic in favor of what the heritage race brings to the table. You count as both.

someone already said this, but that's similar to arguing that you don't have the option of being bald because humans aren't described that way. you select your appearance from a pool of options that expands to include your racial heritage.
You seem to be confusing "anatomy" and "appearance".

not at all. if you look above, you said "characteristics" not anatomy. i responded to that argument. i see what you mean, though, and still disagree.

Forseti wrote:
Having legs is not an appearance option. Having thin, thick, stumpy legs, or being bow-legged, those are appearance options. Having them at all is a defining characteristic of being human. Similarly, the coloration of the scales and the shape of the tail fin are appearance options, while having the lower body of a fish at all is a defining characteristic of being merfolk.

i really don't think what makes someone human or a merfolk is as simplistic (or restrictive) as you think it is. and having legs would totally be an appearance option for a merfolk with human heritage (if they could even take it) if they want to have legs... why wouldn't it be? it wouldn't affect what your movement options are.

Forseti wrote:

If you consider characteristics like these to be "effects" of race, you'll run into unresolvable conflicts. If having legs is an "effect" of being human, you'll have legs. If having a fish tail is an "effect" of being merfolk, you'll have that fish tail. Ignoring either one would break the rule set out by the feat, just like ignoring one of the races for the purpose of a ranger's favored enemies would.

The feat can't make sense if basic anatomy is considered an effect of race.

the favored enemy argument is silly because there's no described mechanism for the bonuses. theoretically, if the ranger can't tell what race you are, that should eliminate the bonuses. RAW doesn't mention this, but it makes sense. if a ranger had favored enemy: drow, and a drow elf successfully disguised as a surface elf or something else it is reasonably similar to to begin with appears, does he get his bonuses? RAW doesn't actually specify at all because it was likely a thought that never crossed the relevant dev's mind. the point being that this could be the same. that would be why we're waiting for a faq. (but yes, you'd count as both human and whatever for the purposes of a ranger's favored enemy. that ability already points out that they don't stack and you apply the highest bonus.)


cuatroespada wrote:
Forseti wrote:
You seem to be confusing "anatomy" and "appearance".
not at all. if you look above, you said "characteristics" not anatomy. i responded to that argument. i see what you mean, though, and still disagree.

But this entire discussion has been about anatomy. Actually introducing the word changes nothing other than hopefully clarifying my point.

cuatroespada wrote:
i really don't think what makes someone human or a merfolk is as simplistic (or restrictive) as you think it is. and having legs would totally be an appearance option for a merfolk with human heritage (if they could even take it) if they want to have legs... why wouldn't it be? it wouldn't affect what your movement options are.

With regard to Racial Heritage, I think it is that restrictive. If the feat would allow a human, for example, to look exactly like an elf, in each and every aspect of outward anatomy, even fooling the most meticulous inspection, I'd think there'd be at least some mention of that in the feat.

Shadow Lodge

It seems this thread is still going on the old "anatomy is an effect" argument. If someone asked me to define an elephant I would say "it is a very large, four legged mammal with grey wrinkly skin, big flappy ears, a long prehensile trunk and tusks." That is what an elephant is not an effect of being an elephant. Likewise, the description of a human as having two arms, two legs, one head a set number of fingers, noses and toeses is what a human is not an effect of being human. A small reptilian humanoid with two arms, two legs, a tail and an elongated snout is what a Kobold is not an effect of being a Kobold. So such anatomical features do not qualify as effects for the purpose of Racial Heritage.


This thread is exactly why the designers should have applied the same paradigm as with requirements and PRCs (as in, it never specifies class, only abilities like unarmed strike, spontaneous casting, etc.) to races and feats.


PatientWolf wrote:
It seems this thread is still going on the old "anatomy is an effect" argument. If someone asked me to define an elephant I would say "it is a very large, four legged mammal with grey wrinkly skin, big flappy ears, a long prehensile trunk and tusks." That is what an elephant is not an effect of being an elephant. Likewise, the description of a human as having two arms, two legs, one head a set number of fingers, noses and toeses is what a human is not an effect of being human. A small reptilian humanoid with two arms, two legs, a tail and an elongated snout is what a Kobold is not an effect of being a Kobold. So such anatomical features do not qualify as effects for the purpose of Racial Heritage.

Right, because you're not creating an elephant that had sex with a turtle as a character.

If someone was to ask you to define a bushwacker, you'd probably say something about it being a form of guerrilla warfare common during the american revolutionary war. Which is not an effect of being a kobold.

The same goes for every single feat too. None of them are an effect of being a certain race, if we look from the top down. For example Stabbing shot is not an effect of being an elf, but an effect of stabbing someone with an arrow and then shooting it.

Racisim is an effect of being not of alike race. So really, all the feat does, from this perspective, is open you up to racist remarks and hatred.

Shadow Lodge

Darche Schneider wrote:
PatientWolf wrote:
It seems this thread is still going on the old "anatomy is an effect" argument. If someone asked me to define an elephant I would say "it is a very large, four legged mammal with grey wrinkly skin, big flappy ears, a long prehensile trunk and tusks." That is what an elephant is not an effect of being an elephant. Likewise, the description of a human as having two arms, two legs, one head a set number of fingers, noses and toeses is what a human is not an effect of being human. A small reptilian humanoid with two arms, two legs, a tail and an elongated snout is what a Kobold is not an effect of being a Kobold. So such anatomical features do not qualify as effects for the purpose of Racial Heritage.

Right, because you're not creating an elephant that had sex with a turtle as a character.

If someone was to ask you to define a bushwacker, you'd probably say something about it being a form of guerrilla warfare common during the american revolutionary war. Which is not an effect of being a kobold.

The same goes for every single feat too. None of them are an effect of being a certain race, if we look from the top down. For example Stabbing shot is not an effect of being an elf, but an effect of stabbing someone with an arrow and then shooting it.

Racisim is an effect of being not of alike race. So really, all the feat does, from this perspective, is open you up to racist remarks and hatred.

I don't know what side you are on in this debate but nothing in that post made any sense to me. I don't know what your point was supposed to be.

Racial Heritage does one thing and one thing only. When determining if you are subject to a feat or spell that normally applies to a specific race, you are considered that race. So if you have Racial Heritage(Orc) and get hit with a boiling blood spell it reacts as if you really were an Orc and you meet the racial requirement for the Ironguts feat. Otherwise you have all the features and characteristics for a normal human unless your GM has allowed otherwise as a house rule.

If you take Racial Heritage(Kobold) you meet racial requirement for Tail Terror. It makes no changes at all to your physical appearance and/or anatomy. So you can take Tail Terror but cannot perform the tail slap until you acquire a tail somehow.


Well, lemme try to reiterate what I said.

Your 'Elephant' analogy is because you're looking for the world as an already created view. You're looking at the elephant's appearance and saying it is not an effect because that is what the elephant is.

Bushwhacker (A Kobold Gunslinger Archetype) likewise could also be seen from this view. Its not an effect related to being a kobold, or in our world, not an effect related to being an American, but instead a certain combat style that was employed during several wars.

Likewise, Stabbing Shot, A feat you have to be an elf to use, isn't an 'effect' but a style of attack where you are stabbing someone with an arrow and then shooting someone.

Perhaps what is needed for the feat, is a new wording? Something like choose a humanoid with the same physiological structure. That prevents any silly nonsense right there, and has real world comparisons such as the liger and mule, both of which take on appearances of their parents, but its not some silly such thing as a warm blooded mammal mating with a kold blooded lizard.

Even more peculiar. Kobold is not actually a subtype of humanoid. Kobold's subtype is reptile. And I'm not sure, but I think its one of the few humanoids from the APG that is like that. Now logically, we can imply that because a kobold is a reptilian humanoid that having kobold heritage would cause things like favored enemy (Reptilian humanoid) to still effect you.


Yes. Strictly speaking, there's no such thing as Favored Enemy: Kobold. You'd have to pick Favored Enemy: Reptilian which would include Kobolds, Lizardmen, Nagaji, and the like, just as Elf would include core Elves, Drow, and any other Elven offshoot you could create with the ARG.

Shadow Lodge

As been repeatedly reiterated, words have their common English meaning unless otherwise stated. So an elephant, human, etc... are exactly as they are in the real world unless otherwise stated. Your argument about Bushwhacker and Stabbing shot would be valid if not for the fact the rules do define these two things as other than their common meaning. One is defined as an archetype and the other is defined as a feat both of which are subject to Racial Heritage. Anatomy is never otherwise defined.


I do so love how the claim is "'common' English meaning as you interpret it" when it suits you, and "defined by the rules" (even when its not) When it suits you.

Like if half-elf or half-orc, races of human and some other racial heritage, were brought up "Well its defined in the rules!" though the two races exhibit physical traits of both orc/elf and human. Actually a rather common aspect with lots of the races, as it seems humans will lay with anything that moves in golirian.

Though with something such as a liger, they exhibit physical appearances of both a lion and a tiger. Having something of a lions mane and a tigers stripes.

Similarly humans who mate between races, such as an African Man and an Asian Woman, would have offspring that exhibit both the physical effects of having the two races blended together.

Hybrids for example.

Though, using the common definition of the word blood.. Ah I get it. Alright okay. I understand. Injecting one's self with a the blood of an old person wouldn't cause physical changes. Obviously that is how you're able to pick up the feat at level 2 on.

In that case, yes. You're absolulty completely right. Now matter how much blood you inject into yourself you'll never grow a tail.

Scarab Sages

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:

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?

Because it's not a prehensile tail.

Shadow Lodge

Darche Schneider wrote:

I do so love how the claim is "'common' English meaning as you interpret it" when it suits you, and "defined by the rules" (even when its not) When it suits you.

Like if half-elf or half-orc, races of human and some other racial heritage, were brought up "Well its defined in the rules!" though the two races exhibit physical traits of both orc/elf and human. Actually a rather common aspect with lots of the races, as it seems humans will lay with anything that moves in golirian.

Though with something such as a liger, they exhibit physical appearances of both a lion and a tiger. Having something of a lions mane and a tigers stripes.

Similarly humans who mate between races, such as an African Man and an Asian Woman, would have offspring that exhibit both the physical effects of having the two races blended together.

Hybrids for example.

Though, using the common definition of the word blood.. Ah I get it. Alright okay. I understand. Injecting one's self with a the blood of an old person wouldn't cause physical changes. Obviously that is how you're able to pick up the feat at level 2 on.

In that case, yes. You're absolulty completely right. Now matter how much blood you inject into yourself you'll never grow a tail.

If you are claiming that I arbitrarily declare some things as common English and others as defined by the rules on what is good for my argument then provide examples. Otherwise it is just an ad hominem argument.

Half-Elves and Half-Orcs do have a common definition. Regardless of what game you play whether D&D, OSRIC, Pathfinder, etc... if you use the term everyone is going to know what you mean and have the same pretty much the same understanding of what one of those is.

Never will you find anything in the rules that defines or implies that anatomy is an "effect" of race as feats, spell effects, and archetypes are. The anatomical features of your character define your race, they are not an "effect" of it.


Forseti wrote:
cuatroespada wrote:
Forseti wrote:
You seem to be confusing "anatomy" and "appearance".
not at all. if you look above, you said "characteristics" not anatomy. i responded to that argument. i see what you mean, though, and still disagree.

But this entire discussion has been about anatomy. Actually introducing the word changes nothing other than hopefully clarifying my point.

cuatroespada wrote:
i really don't think what makes someone human or a merfolk is as simplistic (or restrictive) as you think it is. and having legs would totally be an appearance option for a merfolk with human heritage (if they could even take it) if they want to have legs... why wouldn't it be? it wouldn't affect what your movement options are.
With regard to Racial Heritage, I think it is that restrictive. If the feat would allow a human, for example, to look exactly like an elf, in each and every aspect of outward anatomy, even fooling the most meticulous inspection, I'd think there'd be at least some mention of that in the feat.

This is one extreme of the spectrum but i dont think anyone is arguiing that Racial Heritage makes you indistinguishable from the heritage species. I for one fully agree, that isnt even in the realm of the intent of the feat and i am confident that the design team would say the same. The other extreme of the spectrum however seems to have a lot of support, that is, the feat allows absolutely no physical signs of the heritage to show. To me that is just as absurd and would mean the individual would perfectly pass off as a normal member of their species. That would make it extremely hard to justify allowing any non magical race based effect to fly. Some people have already said there is a happy medium between these points but no one agrees where that point is. I cant have a non functioning tail from the feat, fine. Can i have a beak like mouth from RH Tengu to qualify for Long Nose Form? Or could i take Long Nose Form without a beak now instead? The tail gets the most talk but there is more to it than just the one corner case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure why there is even debate on this. Racial heritage does nothing except qualify you for feats that require a race. As others have said, it qualifies you for Tail Terror but it does NOT give you extra body parts or make you look more like that race (though you could role play it that way). You would still need a tail in order to actually use Tail Terror. Otherwise, it's a wasted feat.

301 to 350 of 1,170 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does the Racial Heritage feat, combined with a feat that improves an inherent feature (claws, poison, etc) grant you that feature? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.