Tengu White haired witch.


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wraith235 wrote:

I am saying there is Nothing by RAW saying they Cant use it -

its implied yes
its RAI yes

I think there's always meant to be a certain amount of common sense used in any reference. This being PFS, we get 100 different kinds of common sense. Of course, only a few people's common sense actually get to say what common sense is THE common sense.

Does that make sense?

Again, not sure if the intent was to disallow certain races from using it either. Would suck to have an addendum for every odd bit and piece, and at the same time it would suck to accidentally exclude something that could very easily be overlooked.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Wraith235 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
Id Like to point out ...that nowhere in the requirements does it say the PC / NPC MUST have Hair ...it is only implied

"At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon."

If you don't have hair, you can't use it as a weapon.

You can take the archetype, feat, or spell--because there's no restriction that says it has to be useful, which is actually unfortunate in this rare instance--but that doesn't mean you can use hair you don't have as a weapon.

and if you dont have hair you cant use the Hex Class feature ... I understand the arguments ... Im not arguing it .... I agree ... it should not be legal

I am saying there is Nothing by RAW saying they Cant use it -
its implied yes
its RAI yes

but also Nowhere in Tengu does it say they DONT have hair - again .. implied and RAI

Same with Nagaji ... again .. RAI ... not RAW

You do realize that the absense of:

"And race X doesn't have hair" is not indicative that they do (or that they could).

The Tengu race specifically describes them being completely covered in feathers.

The Nagaji race specifically talks about them being reptilian with skin completely covered in scales.

Declaring that them not having hair is RAI rather than RAW is silly.

5/5

Wraith235 wrote:


but also Nowhere in Tengu does it say they DONT have hair - again .. implied and RAI

Same with Nagaji ... again .. RAI ... not RAW

well .. if we are going to go RAW on this .. let's look at the descriptions of the races./

Pathfinder PRD wrote:


Physical Description: Tengus are avian humanoids whose features strongly resemble crows. They have broad beaks and both their arms and their legs end in powerful talons. Though tengus are unable to fly, iridescent feathers cover their bodies—this plumage is usually black, though occasionally brown or blue-back.

To me this is saying that they have feathers not hair.

pathfinder PRD wrote:

Physical Description: The reptilian nagaji have scaly flesh—these scales are typically green, gray, or brown in hue, with colorful ridges of red, blue, or orange on their skulls or backs.

To me that means they are scaley, scaley creatures don't have hair


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
To me that means they are scaley, scaley creatures don't have hair

This one does. Fantasy settings tend to break the norms of things. Only gets wonkier when you throw in magic and supernatural tends to be wonkier than magic.

5/5

MrSin wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
To me that means they are scaley, scaley creatures don't have hair
This one does. Fantasy settings tend to break the norms of things. Only gets wonkier when you throw in magic and supernatural tends to be wonkier than magic.

And if we could play dragons your point would be valid. We are not allowed to play dragons so you point in this instance is (to me) an invalid point. We are talking about two races that are legal in PFS play, not a race that holds no bearing on our characters

5/5 5/55/55/5

"How many bandits did we kill back there?

"10 or 12"

"And they were human right?"

"Yeah... why?

"And they weren't bald?

"Nope. Whyyyyyyy?

"Cool. I brought sovereign glue last time. Be right back...

5/5 5/55/55/5

If the lizardfolk have breasts I"m leaving...

5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

"How many bandits did we kill back there?

"10 or 12"

"And they were human right?"

"Yeah... why?

"And they weren't bald?

"Nope. Whyyyyyyy?

"Cool. I brought sovereign glue last time. Be right back...

Still not their hair lol

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
Id Like to point out ...that nowhere in the requirements does it say the PC / NPC MUST have Hair ...it is only implied

"At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon."

If you don't have hair, you can't use it as a weapon.

You can take the archetype, feat, or spell--because there's no restriction that says it has to be useful, which is actually unfortunate in this rare instance--but that doesn't mean you can use hair you don't have as a weapon.

and if you dont have hair you cant use the Hex Class feature ... I understand the arguments ... Im not arguing it .... I agree ... it should not be legal

I am saying there is Nothing by RAW saying they Cant use it -
its implied yes
its RAI yes

but also Nowhere in Tengu does it say they DONT have hair - again .. implied and RAI

Same with Nagaji ... again .. RAI ... not RAW

You do realize that the absense of:

"And race X doesn't have hair" is not indicative that they do (or that they could).

The Tengu race specifically describes them being completely covered in feathers.

The Nagaji race specifically talks about them being reptilian with skin completely covered in scales.

Declaring that them not having hair is RAI rather than RAW is silly.

and it was rather Silly argument on the Wildblooded / Crossblooded thing until the powers that be came down and said it didn't Work

how many Firefinger Sorcerers Shocking hand Sorcerers / Dervish Dancer Bards do you remember arguing that what they wanted to do worked

the Monk Flurry of blows was another instance along the lines

so while I do believe that Having hair SHOULD be a requirement of the Archtype as a PFS GM it is not within my power to tell a player that his Character is illegal when there is no RAW Requirement of having to have hair ... everything is Implied / flavor text / description

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wraith235 wrote:

but also Nowhere in Tengu does it say they DONT have hair - again .. implied and RAI

Same with Nagaji ... again .. RAI ... not RAW

There's no explicit distinction made in RAW between genders. It's implied, but it's not RAW!

The section describing the "dead" condition doesn't say that dead people can't take any actions. It's implied, but it's not RAW!

C'mon, man. This isn't about RAW vs RAI. Either the damn things have hair or they don't. In this case, they don't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
To me that means they are scaley, scaley creatures don't have hair
This one does. Fantasy settings tend to break the norms of things. Only gets wonkier when you throw in magic and supernatural tends to be wonkier than magic.
And if we could play dragons your point would be valid. We are not allowed to play dragons so you point in this instance is (to me) an invalid point. We are talking about two races that are legal in PFS play, not a race that holds no bearing on our characters

Well my point wasn't trying to be 'valid'. I'm not actually arguing anything. More so making general statements about things.

Not everyone has to be an argument dontcha' know.

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
To me this is saying that they have feathers not hair.

So, I went on a journey to find out if birds have hair. They have something similar called Rictal Bristles! Fun fact of the day I guess. Downside is they are whiskers and eyelashes. Which means you have the horrendous image of a tengu with large eyebrows strangling a man... which oddly enough fits in with white haired witch in Wuxia imo, but YMMV.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Wraith235 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Wraith235 wrote:
Id Like to point out ...that nowhere in the requirements does it say the PC / NPC MUST have Hair ...it is only implied

"At 1st level, a white-haired witch gains the ability to use her hair as a weapon."

If you don't have hair, you can't use it as a weapon.

You can take the archetype, feat, or spell--because there's no restriction that says it has to be useful, which is actually unfortunate in this rare instance--but that doesn't mean you can use hair you don't have as a weapon.

and if you dont have hair you cant use the Hex Class feature ... I understand the arguments ... Im not arguing it .... I agree ... it should not be legal

I am saying there is Nothing by RAW saying they Cant use it -
its implied yes
its RAI yes

but also Nowhere in Tengu does it say they DONT have hair - again .. implied and RAI

Same with Nagaji ... again .. RAI ... not RAW

You do realize that the absense of:

"And race X doesn't have hair" is not indicative that they do (or that they could).

The Tengu race specifically describes them being completely covered in feathers.

The Nagaji race specifically talks about them being reptilian with skin completely covered in scales.

Declaring that them not having hair is RAI rather than RAW is silly.

and it was rather Silly argument on the Wildblooded / Crossblooded thing until the powers that be came down and said it didn't Work

how many Firefinger Sorcerers Shocking hand Sorcerers / Dervish Dancer Bards do you remember arguing that what they wanted to do worked

the Monk Flurry of blows was another instance along the lines

so while I do believe that Having hair SHOULD be a requirement of the Archtype as a PFS GM it is not within my power to tell a player that his Character is illegal when there is no RAW Requirement of having to have hair ... everything is Implied / flavor text / description

So what is that character animating with the prehensile hair hex, if they don't have hair? What is that character using as a weapon if they don't have hair, but do have the white-haired witch archetype?

Taking a feat that doesn't say you can't take it, even though it does you no good (is completely useless for you) doesn't suddenly give you the ability to use it (or for it to be useful).

Same thing here.

As a GM, you do have the power to tell them that prehensile hair doesn't work if you don't have hair. You have the right as a GM to make common sense calls.

PFS RAW does not preclude you from doing this.

And at some point, you have to be able to use description to mean something. Just because it isn't crunch, doesn't mean it doesn't have meaning in the context of the crunch.

Aside from that, prehensile hair and white-haired witch both talk about hair in the crunch description of the ability. Therefore, hair is required to use the ability. If you don't have hair, you can't use the ability.

You don't have to declare the character illegal, you just don't allow them to do something that the ability doesn't allow them to do.

In other words, the ability doesn't say that they grow hair that then becomes prehensile. So if they don't have hair the ability doesn't allow them to grow it just to use the ability.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

the sad part is at the end of the Day until the powers that be come down and rule one way or another (I dont care which honestly) either side of this argument is RAI

one side Saying "if you dont have hair you cant use your hexes"
the other Saying "Feathers / scales / Spines etc. should Count"

RAI is the Bane of Organized Campaigns it Breeds Table Variation and this is no exception

I have listed several examples of the "Same Lines" that eventually went against popular belief ... there are more that have come down
1 that quickly comes off my head is Sohie flurrying in Light Armor

the end of it is no matter how we argue about how things SHOULD be done ... if there is no hard fast rule that it CANT be done when we enforce these Rules as PFS GM's we are breaking one of the Main Rules of PFS

Dont Be a Jerk - we are enforcing our Beliefs on how things should work - Not the Rules themselves

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see how you an say it is not RAW to say that if you don't have hair you can't make your hair prehensile.

That seems completely nonsensical to me.

Your definition and mine, of what Rules as Written, means, must be completely different.

And Table Variation is a rule in PFS.

If I don't think something works, I am not being a Jerk when I rule that it doesn't work.

I'm following the rules as I see them.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't see how you an say it is not RAW to say that if you don't have hair you can't make your hair prehensile.

That seems completely nonsensical to me.

Your definition and mine, of what Rules as Written, means, must be completely different.

And Table Variation is a rule in PFS.

If I don't think something works, I am not being a Jerk when I rule that it doesn't work.

I'm following the rules as I see them.

and nowhere ... does it say that white haired witch doesn't GIVE them hair ... that is your interpretation and how you believe that it was intended

there are so many things about your post I find offensive that its best I just walk away from the Conversation now

Liberty's Edge 5/5

The way the rules work, is if it doesn't say you get it, you don't get it.

You don't just assume you get something that isn't explicitly granted.

This isn't RAI. That's the way the rules work.

This isn't just an interpretation, this is how interpreting rules work.

If a developer wants to clarify how the Hex or Archetype works in this regards (which likely is not going to happen on the PFS boards) then that's fine. That clarification is now granting something that the rules did not.

But just because they "could" come and clarify in such away, does not mean that the rules as written aren't what they are just because its not explicitly spelled out that they don't get something.

It is obvious that your definition and mine of what "rules as written" means, is different.

You define it, that unless something is 100% explicit, it is in flux ,and therefore RAW in PFS you have to allow whatever a player wants to come up with that isn't explicitly disallowed.

I think you know that's not how things should or do work. But based on what you are saying here, that's how it would have to be applied.

5/5

Wraith235 wrote:
and nowhere ... does it say that white haired witch doesn't GIVE them hair ...

I won't lie to you here: I don't find this argument compelling. If a spell caused someone to spontaneously generate hair--especially if they're a species that doesn't, by default, generate hair--the spell would say so. Because spells don't generally supply things they affect--when they do, it's an exception, not a rule.

If a description of a race includes "it has scales" or "it has feathers" it does not need to say "it does not have hair" because they don't generally occur together, and when they do--if, indeed, there were such a creature, which I can't say for certain--it would be the exception, not the rule.

Edit: Fiddled with wording.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I agree that creatures without hair should not be able to take the White Hair Witch archtype or the Hexes associated with having hair.

However, there are some birds that do have eyelashes, which are hair. If I saw a white haired tengu, and the player said it was their eyelashes that was the PC's hair, then I do not believe that I could say that they are incorrect, or that the build was illegal/wrong.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do find it funny that the guy with a white haired turtle for an icon (yes, it's a kappa, but it's still a turtle) is arguing that haired tengu and nagagi are impossible and calling the people who disagree with him silly and nonsensical and their arguments horse manure.

Point is Wraith is right. The powers that be will come down one way or another and reasonable people can see feathers and scales as hair or not. I think most PFS judges would let it slide, perhaps with a warning to expect that the next GM might not under 'expect table variation'. I recomend that someone would take some time to consider my local play enviroment before I'd introduce such a character.

And I do think these arguments on the forums create an usually unwarranted impression of narrowmindedness that discourages newer players.

On a personal note, I'm glad my half serpent woman with hair is an eidolon so no one can complain how 'unrealistic it is' and that the three children she had with her summoner/husband are just background fluff (and if anyone asks, they're either playing with their friend Junia on the grounds of her old school, visiting the Blackros Museum, or being watched by Miss Feathers).


Neither here nor there, but wikipedia says this about tengu masks:

Wikipedia wrote:
The use of hair varies among examples and can range from carved and painted hair, to hair that is fastened to and extending from the top of the mask, to no hair at all, leaving only the wearer’s hair to contribute to the persona. Facial hair can be none or any combination of carved and painted or fastened moustache and beard. The mask from the museum shows no head or facial hair.

The page has a couple images of historical tengu representations with facial hair. None of which may be relevant to Golarion tengu, but it is a thing I found out there.

4/5

Kerney wrote:

I do find it funny that the guy with a white haired turtle for an icon (yes, it's a kappa, but it's still a turtle) is arguing that haired tengu and nagagi are impossible and calling the people who disagree with him silly and nonsensical and their arguments horse manure.

I'm going to try to interpret Andrew here, but I don't think he's saying that reptile and bird people cannot have hair. He's just saying tengu and nagaji don't. Which is a different thing. I think if Paizo put out a race called hairstriches, which were canonically a race of ostriches with mohawks, Andrew would happily seat them at his table as a White Haired witch. Same with a kappa PC race that has hair.

But let's say there was a new race called the Dreamless that had, in their racial description "the Dreamless never dream". Then Andrew would say that they can never be the target of a dream or nightmare spell (which can help you out in at least three scenarios so far, so that's a good thing!), but he would also not let them use the following trait:

Good Dreams wrote:
Your dreams often give you a hint of possible dangers you might face during your day—such as a fall, a blast of fire, or a poisonous snake— and this hint sometimes makes all the difference. Each time you sleep, the GM tells you of a dangerous dream you had. Once per day, if you have to make a saving throw against a threat related or similar to that dream, you can roll twice and take the more favorable result. If you do not encounter circumstances similar to the threat or situation you dreamed, this trait has no effect that day. If you have the Halfling Jinx trait (see page 27), you cannot select this trait, and vice versa.


Mark Seifter wrote:
But let's say there was a new race called the Dreamless that had, in their racial description "the Dreamless never dream". Then Andrew would say that they can never be the target of a dream or nightmare spell (which can help you out in at least three scenarios so far, so that's a good thing!), but he would also not let them use the following trait:

To be fair, a race called dreamless would likely have that as a very clearly defined racial trait. That, or dreamless is metaphorical.

4/5

MrSin wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
But let's say there was a new race called the Dreamless that had, in their racial description "the Dreamless never dream". Then Andrew would say that they can never be the target of a dream or nightmare spell (which can help you out in at least three scenarios so far, so that's a good thing!), but he would also not let them use the following trait:
To be fair, a race called dreamless would likely have that as a very clearly defined racial trait. That, or dreamless is metaphorical.

Suppose it wasn't a clearly defined mechanical racial trait but that it was mentioned several times in the racial description and had large sections about it and how it affects the society. So maybe something like three times as prominent as the Bleaching is for gnomes. Perhaps the fact that they can never dream comes up five times in total in the race write-up, but is not listed in the mechanical section as an ability.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

Mark Seifter wrote:
Kerney wrote:

I do find it funny that the guy with a white haired turtle for an icon (yes, it's a kappa, but it's still a turtle) is arguing that haired tengu and nagagi are impossible and calling the people who disagree with him silly and nonsensical and their arguments horse manure.

I'm going to try to interpret Andrew here, but I don't think he's saying that reptile and bird people cannot have hair. He's just saying tengu and nagaji don't. Which is a different thing. I think if Paizo put out a race called hairstriches, which were canonically a race of ostriches with mohawks, Andrew would happily seat them at his table as a White Haired witch. Same with a kappa PC race that has hair.

I think this is fair. It is the interpretation I'd probably go with if I cared enough to care and the player didn't come up with a really good quick explaination (which they would be allowed to do at my table). I don't mind him thinking certain things are horse droppings either. I certainly do.

But a VO telling others how silly they are isn't a good thing publicly either and it is something I do care about and tried to point out about ever so gently. [/end derail now]

Liberty's Edge 5/5

There is a certain level of reskinning that is appropriate in PFS.

Deciding that your Tengu is actually a hairy Kiwi bird, is not one of those.

Or deciding that "your" description of Nagaji is that they have long flowing blond locks of hair, is not one of them.

These creatures are defined a certain way by the developers of the game.


Andrew Christian wrote:
These creatures are defined a certain way by the developers of the game.

How many versions of Catfolk and Kitsune are there again?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
These creatures are defined a certain way by the developers of the game.
How many versions of Catfolk and Kitsune are there again?

In Pathfinder, or roleplaying games in general?

3/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

"How many bandits did we kill back there?

"10 or 12"

"And they were human right?"

"Yeah... why?

"And they weren't bald?

"Nope. Whyyyyyyy?

"Cool. I brought sovereign glue last time. Be right back...

Still not their hair lol

Playing Devil's Advocate here... didn't they win it in battle? Isn't it theirs by right of conquest, just like the gold they took from the bandits?

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Kerney, you are not the only person who has taken Andrew, or other Venture Lieutenants, to task for speaking in a way that may not speaking with the same professional restraint as the campaign staff would use. Heck, for that matter, people have taken people such as you and I, as "multi-star GMs" to task for voicing personal opinions on these boards.

I'm going to suggest to you today that neither you nor I -- by dint of our love of supporting PFS -- nor Andrew -- by dint of his willingness to help organize games up in Anoka and help Ryan manage the campaign up there -- always speaks for the campaign leadership. It's pointless to say "you shouldn't hold opinions" or "you shouldn't call something stupid or horsefeathers" because you're a multi-star GM / VL.

Now, there are times when Andrew is speaking on behalf of the campaign staff, and he's been pretty clear when he's doing so. He phrases his language in terms of "the campaign wants players to ..." and so forth.

A member of our community shouldn't lose the right to speak his or her opinion because he or she has run a lot of games nor because he or she organizes a game day and helps the local Venture Captain. (Nor for being a Star Voter, nor any other tags next to our names, excepting Campaign Leadership and Venture Captains.)

At least, that's my opinion.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Chris Mortika wrote:

Kerney, you are not the only person who has taken Andrew, or other Venture Lieutenants, to task for speaking in a way that may not speaking with the same professional restraint as the campaign staff would use. Heck, for that matter, people have taken people such as you and I, as "multi-star GMs" to task for voicing personal opinions on these boards.

I'm going to suggest to you today that neither you nor I -- by dint of our love of supporting PFS -- nor Andrew -- by dint of his willingness to help organize games up in Anoka and help Ryan manage the campaign up there -- always speaks for the campaign leadership. It's pointless to say "you shouldn't hold opinions" or "you shouldn't call something stupid or horsefeathers" because you're a multi-star GM / VL.

Now, there are times when Andrew is speaking on behalf of the campaign staff, and he's been pretty clear when he's doing so. He phrases his language in terms of "the campaign wants players to ..." and so forth.

A member of our community shouldn't lose the right to speak his or her opinion because he or she has run a lot of games nor because he or she organizes a game day and helps the local Venture Captain. (Nor for being a Star Voter, nor any other tags next to our names, excepting Campaign Leadership and Venture Captains.)

At least, that's my opinion.

Thanks Chris.

Yes, when I'm speaking for campaign staff (which I don't do a lot of) I do try to do so with a professional tone. And I do my best to make it clear when I'm doing so.

I do find it interesting though, that when I voice my opinion about something, and mention that I have experience and have run 100's of games, in an effort to show that I have more experience than a couple tables, I get called to task, I believe incorrectly, for an "appeal to authority logical fallacy".

And when I don't do that, I get called to task for being an authority figure?

kinda a double standard?


Andrew Christian wrote:
kinda a double standard?

Depends on how you state things. Stating "I think" helps reassure its just your opinion, while stating reasons you are an authority can lead to people thinking your seeking an appeal to authority or your rubbing your own ego, neither of which tend to be taken well. Also, if you just state something like "It can't be done!" it comes off as what we can call an 'absolute' and absolutes don't do well with subjective matters or ones of opinion or variance. So if instead you state simply "I don't think this works" you may get better results.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

MrSin wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
kinda a double standard?
Depends on how you state things. Stating "I think" helps reassure its just your opinion, while stating reasons you are an authority can lead to people thinking your seeking an appeal to authority or your rubbing your own ego, neither of which tend to be taken well. Also, if you just state something like "It can't be done!" it comes off as what we can call an 'absolute' and absolutes don't do well with subjective matters or ones of opinion or variance. So if instead you state simply "I don't think this works" you may get better results.

You'll note that my first post on this topic started with "My Interpretation:"

So it goes to figure that all further posts would be considered that its my Interpretation.

I'm not much one for having to caveat everything I say everytime I say it. Its a waste of time.

Lantern Lodge 4/5

I tried a thorough search first, because I thought I had recalled reading a clarification that a bald witch could spontaneously grow hair as a manifestation of this ability, and that discussion may have provided some relevance ... but I couldn't find it, so maybe it was just player chatter.

Would I permit a bald white-haired witch? As much as I'd permit a red-haired witch, yes as it's largely cosmetic.

Would I permit a tengu white-haired witch? As much as I believe feathers are a biological evolution of hair, and I love the imagery of a flurry of animated feathers, I think it fits the theme really well ... for a home-game.

Would I permit a nagaji white-haired witch? Most likely not. And it's this inconsistency that makes me feel reticent on the tengu white-haired witch. I don't feel comfortable within the context of PFS stretching a rule interpretation for one race, but then not extending it for another (slippery slope).

Though it might be cute to see a racial trait or feat that allowed a tengu to substitute a flurry of feathers for prehensile hair in an upcoming player companion themed on witches or tengu.


Andrew Christian wrote:
Its a waste of time.

Well, its not exactly a waste of time. Each statement and paragraph you make should ideally stand on your own. While you might interpret it as everything you state being an extension of your first words, that's not quiet how other people might read it. Take for example

Andrew Christian wrote:
If you don't have hair, then you can't make use of these abilities.

Statements like these definitely look like they are stated as a fact, rather than as an opinion, and its so divorced from what you say far at the top that it doesn't look at all like an opinion.

Probably off topic at this point.

Grand Lodge 4/5

We need to rewrite White Haired Witch to the more inclusive Melanin-Deficient Keratin-Based Epidermal Growth Witch/Warlock!

I expect every lodge to be familiar with the new guidelines for the MDKBEGWWs that will be forthcoming!

Rah! Rah! Rah!

Stephen White wrote:
Though it might be cute to see a racial trait or feat that allowed a tengu to substitute a flurry of feathers for prehensile hair in an upcoming player companion themed on witches or tengu.

It should feature a will save versus being tickled.


Andrei Buters wrote:

We need to rewrite White Haired Witch to the more inclusive Melanin-Deficient Keratin-Based Epidermal Growth Witch/Warlock!

I expect every lodge to be familiar with the new guidelines for the MDKBEGWWs that will be forthcoming!

Rah! Rah! Rah!

I hope there are some silent letters in there. I don't know if I can say that every time.

Grand Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Keratinomancer is a snappier term.

5/5

Kerney wrote:
The powers that be will come down one way or another and reasonable people can see feathers and scales as hair or not.

I do not foresee official clarification on this matter.

5/5 *

Mistwalker wrote:
However, there are some birds that do have eyelashes, which are hair. If I saw a white haired tengu, and the player said it was their eyelashes that was the PC's hair, then I do not believe that I could say that they are incorrect, or that the build was illegal/wrong

This. I actually thought of this concept before, and I was going to use either eyebrows or eyelashes. I actually always envisioned tengu with eyelashes. I mean, who says tengu don't have eyelashes!

Show me in the book where they don't have eyelashes. Because if your argument is "they dont until it says they do" then I have all the other core races to show you. If we go by "it's in the pictures" then we would have people arguing that all dwarves are blonde because Harsk is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a reason the phrase "you can't prove a negative" gets used.

Absence of evidence means nothing. The books also say nothing about whether tengu have tentacles or 12 sets of eyes.

-j

Grand Lodge 5/5

Carlos Robledo wrote:
If we go by "it's in the pictures" then we would have people arguing that all dwarves are blonde because Harsk is.

That pic in the Core with all the Core races standing around in their underwear has a red-headed dwarf.

5/5 *

Seth Gipson wrote:
Carlos Robledo wrote:
If we go by "it's in the pictures" then we would have people arguing that all dwarves are blonde because Harsk is.
That pic in the Core with all the Core races standing around in their underwear has a red-headed dwarf.

Ok, no brunette dwarves then :P

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Here is a related question that should get asked:

Do you 'disarm' a white haired witch by shaving off all her hair - for example if you imprison her.

YMMV but the answer leads you to the answer of the Tengu and Nagaji

Spoiler:

I would allow the disarm as part of creative play


Thod wrote:

Here is a related question that should get asked:

Do you 'disarm' a white haired witch by shaving off all her hair - for example if you imprison her.

YMMV but the answer leads you to the answer of the Tengu and Nagaji

** spoiler omitted **

I think the fact that the hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature makes this an even more complicated question.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ****

Paul Byers wrote:
Thod wrote:

Here is a related question that should get asked:

Do you 'disarm' a white haired witch by shaving off all her hair - for example if you imprison her.

YMMV but the answer leads you to the answer of the Tengu and Nagaji

** spoiler omitted **

I think the fact that the hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature makes this an even more complicated question.

Agreed - Pathfinder rules can be difficult

Does it become 'normal' hair once the witch runs out of hexes for the day and can be cut completely?

For the nails hex it states it takes 1d4 days to regrow after being trimmed.


Paul Byers wrote:
Thod wrote:

Here is a related question that should get asked:

Do you 'disarm' a white haired witch by shaving off all her hair - for example if you imprison her.

YMMV but the answer leads you to the answer of the Tengu and Nagaji

** spoiler omitted **

I think the fact that the hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature makes this an even more complicated question.

Clearly since hair cannot be trimmed Golarion has a lot of bad hair problems. That sounds like a lot of split ends...

Then again, I don't think we're getting a Fashion and Styles of Golarion player companion anytime soon.

Scarab Sages

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
I want to just wave this off, because it feels silly, but for once I have to come down on the side of the conservative element: Tengu don't have hair. If we handwave it for tengu because it's not fair--which is really what it comes down to--what about nagaji? What are we handwaving allowance for there? Just a straight up tentacle? It simply doesn't work.

Curly, twirly catfish whiskers?


MrSin wrote:

Clearly since hair cannot be trimmed Golarion has a lot of bad hair problems. That sounds like a lot of split ends...

Then again, I don't think we're getting a Fashion and Styles of Golarion player companion anytime soon.

Luckily? It is just a specific rule for the archetype that makes the disarm question funky, rather than everyone's hair funky. We are talking about supernatural hair, after all.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that the developers never wrote up super specific rules for this, or for what races expressly had or didn't have hair, because if they did each book would be a thousand pages thick. Instead, I imagine that they trusted that we would come to reasonable conclusions about how ultimately trivial things like this would play out.

But if we want to really dissect this...:
Let's start with hair.

According to wikipedia (and I'm not in school so I feel free to cite it), "hair is one of the defining characteristics of mammals...Hair has its origins in the common ancestor of mammals, the Synapsids, or possibly a subclade, the Sphenacodontoidea, about 310 million years ago." So hair is a mammal only thing. All mammals are warm-blooded (endothermic). Therefore, any creature that is not warm-blooded is not a mammal, and cannot have hair. Or, another way to phrase it, cold-blooded animals cannot have hair.

According to Paizo, creatures with the are usually cold-blooded. And nagaji have the reptilian subtype. So, nagaji might actually be warm-blooded (and some oracles might be black-blooded!).

Given this, there's nothing conclusive about if nagaji have hair or not. To wrinkle matters further, birds are warm-blooded. And tengu are "bird-like" creatures with the tengu subytpe--a subtype that is undefined. So there's nothing there that forces tengu to be bald.

But our work so far does lead us back to this: only mammals can have hair. If we can prove that either aren't mammals, they can't have hair.

Lets look at tengus. We find this line when reading about tengu. "Tengu are avian humanoids whose features strongly resemble crows...Like many avians, tengus have hollow bones and reproduce by laying eggs." The only egg laying mammals that exist in the real world are monotremes--the platypus and the echidna. So unless tengu are monotremes, (which I doubt, because I don't think they lactate!), they cannot be mammals and thusly, cannot produce hair. Furthermore, they are labelled numerous times as avians, and as we all know, birds cannot produce hair.

Following the same train of thought, let's examine Nagaji. Surprisingly, I can find no text on whether or not Nagaji are egg-laying creatures! They are however, referred to as "ophidian humanoids," which means one of two things. In the real world, ophidian animals are those that belong to the reptilian suborder, ophidia--the suborder of snakes. And we all know snakes lay eggs. The second meaning, is one coined with the D&D franchise. In these terms, Ophidians are "snakemen." Snakemen then became yuan-ti (which don't exist in Pathfinder) and lizardfolk--both of which lay eggs. So clearly, Nagaji are not mammals, and cannot produce hair.

Things look pretty sewn up at this point--neither can produce hair because they lay eggs! Then we look at dragons. They're reptilian and lay eggs, but they can shapechange into a creature with hair or grow hair of their own. And dragons are definitely not monotromes nor are they mammals. So, as usual, fantasy ruins my real-world logic.

Probably the best thing to do is just to realize that it's a fantastical environment where anything is possible. Letting bird and snake people grow hair is far from breaking the game, but it does make the game fun for some people.

I can't see anything that prevents those races from having hair and my job isn't to turn people away, it's to provide them with a good time.

So If a tengu or nagaji white haired witch sits at my table, I'd let their abilities work, even if it has to be with scales or feathers.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Eyelashes are made of hair.

Some birds have eyelashes.

So, some birds have hair.

Could Tengu fit into this category of bird?

51 to 100 of 124 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Tengu White haired witch. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.