You fulfil all of the prerequisites of the feat and there explicitly can be non human aasimar, so yes, the combination is valid.
It's funny, because even if a tiefling kobold picks the prehensile tail racial trait, they can't get the Tail Terror feat because they don't have any way to count as a kobold.
Yeah, unless you have a way of gaining a tail you qualify for the feat but you don't have a tail to attack with.
For PFS all Aasimar must be human. For a home game you should discuss with you GM whether or not he is willing to allow a kobold variant aasimar.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
For PFS the answer is no.
For other games, ask your GM.
This has had multiple heated debates and there is Developer Comments to say no.
|
For PFS the answer is no.
For other games, ask your GM.
This has had multiple heated debates and there is Developer Comments to say no.
That developer comment is not saying no. It's saying "no since you don't have a tail to begin with." A kobold (and by logical extension a kobold-aasimar) has a tail and thus is legal.
See the sidebar from d20pfsrd
Not all aasimar are descended from humans. Aasimars can be born of any intelligent race, though human aasimars are the most common. Aasimars of other races usually exemplify the ideals of beauty and skill as seen by their base race. For example, halfling aasimars are small, beautifully proportioned, and display exceptional grace. Half-orc aasimars are slightly larger and stronger than ordinary orcs, with tough skin and metallic claws and tusks—they are likely to be neutral rather than evil, but still display aggression and incredible combat prowess. Less common humanoids, such as lizardfolk, catfolk, tengus, and others, can also produce aasimars, though given these races’ exotic appearance, members of the more common races may have trouble telling such aasimars apart from their kin.
I don't have my Blood of Angels book here with me, but if you have it as a source you can verify that it says much the same thing.
Aasimars, even 'human ones', can use the Alternative Physical Features chart. (84 Other: fox tail) SO unlike human, aasimars are listed as possibly having a tail at start.
Of course, I have NO idea about PFS's houserules on this.
How are you both a kobold aasimar and a scion of humanity?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because the mechanics of the rules allow it.
To be fair, Scion of Humanity 'should' be Scion of Heritage and work for non-human Aasimars, saving you the racial heritage feat.
That would be mechanically possibly overpowered, leaving the current path fine if you ask me.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Ironically, it was Stephen Radney-MacFarland that laid down the hard line rule that Developer commentary isn't official, and that only FAQs and errata are, so he invalidates his own stance on Tail Terror.
I think he said that when he said something in a thread and a lot of people trash talked him, mostly the "TO RAW" type crowd. So we got the "fine ignore everything the devs say online" mantra. Which I think hurts the game. But I'm just me.
|
I completely agree that his stance hurts the game.
I take every opportunity to point that out. Especially in cases like this.
It's like, we were finally making progress, and many of us had extensive lists of quotes that clarified or ended many rules arguments, but with just one comment it all got tossed out of the window.
|
To be fair, Dev comments in a forum are impossible to maintain and index for quick use at an event. GMs and Players should have easy access to FAQs and Additional Resources for what is legal, and having to search a specific dev post leads to table variation.
For issues that are so problematic that they need clarification, they need to be addressed in a blog, faq, or errata. A simple dev comment is not sufficient for organized play.
|
|
To be fair, Dev comments in a forum are impossible to maintain and index for quick use at an event. GMs and Players should have easy access to FAQs and Additional Resources for what is legal, and having to search a specific dev post leads to table variation.
For issues that are so problematic that they need clarification, they need to be addressed in a blog, faq, or errata. A simple dev comment is not sufficient for organized play.
And yet for PFS dev posts (as in the campaign management, not the devs we revere here on the rules forum) is sufficient for organized play.
The Pathfinder Society Community
You may not simply ignore rules clarifications made
by the campaign leadership, including the campaign
coordinator and campaign developer, on the paizo.
com messageboards. GMs are not required to read every
post on the messageboards, but GMs familiar with rules
clarifications made by the campaign leadership (which
have not been superseded by the Guide to Pathfinder Society
Organized Play or FAQ) must abide by these clarifications
or rulings. If it is a significant clarification, it will be
updated in the FAQ, and later in the Guide to Pathfinder
Society Organized Play if necessary.
So if the GM isn't aware of a post, but is made aware of the post, then they have to abide by it.
I completely agree that his stance hurts the game.
I take every opportunity to point that out. Especially in cases like this.
It's like, we were finally making progress, and many of us had extensive lists of quotes that clarified or ended many rules arguments, but with just one comment it all got tossed out of the window.
He made a good point when he made that post. You SHOULDN'T need to have "extensive lists" of quotes that appeared in random posts throughout the website to keep things working. On top of that, you'd get situations where you had dev comments that contradicted OTHER dev quotes which only created MORE debate...
So if the GM isn't aware of a post, but is made aware of the post, then they have to abide by it.
Well, how about this. Say that a GM is aware of Stephen Radney-MacFarland's post that laid down the hard line rule that Developer commentary isn't official. Wouldn't pointing to THAT mean that they could ignore any other messageboard posts? Doing otherwise would be breaking the rule you pointed out.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
having to search a specific dev post leads to table variation.
Table variance is unavoidable. Not everyone is so strict with the rules to bother looking for clarification in FAQ, Errata, or forums.
So if dev comments are in a forum, they really are only for those wishing to search for them. They don't need to indexed and they don't need everyone playing by those interpretations. But they do need to be there to settle the questions "how does this work". It works like this, here is a link to a dev confirmation.
|
|
having to search a specific dev post leads to table variation.Table variance is unavoidable. Not everyone is so strict with the rules to bother looking for clarification in FAQ, Errata, or forums.
So if dev comments are in a forum, they really are only for those wishing to search for them. They don't need to indexed and they don't need everyone playing by those interpretations. But they do need to be there to settle the questions "how does this work". It works like this, here is a link to a dev confirmation.
Which can lead to not being able to play.
Say Bob is scheduled to play a 7-11 scenario with a character that is legal via the rulebooks and FAQs, but a dev post invalidates that build. The gm points this out at the table, and Bob has no other available character to play in that tier. If this had been posted anywhere other than just a forum post, Bob would have been able to correct the build before play. But by being shown a dev post at the table, the choice is to not play and waste the convention and slot fees paid, or to play a level 7 pregen out of tier and likely die.
Either way, fun is not had by Bob.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh good, this nonsense is rearing its head again.
|
|
Well, how about this. Say that a GM is aware of Stephen Radney-MacFarland's post that laid down the hard line rule that Developer commentary isn't official. Wouldn't pointing to THAT mean that they could ignore any other messageboard posts? Doing otherwise would be breaking the rule you pointed out.
So if the GM isn't aware of a post, but is made aware of the post, then they have to abide by it.
Neither applicable nor related. This is in the Guide to PFS Organized Play and specifically says "posts by campaign leadership". Other Paizo employees aren't campaign leadership. I believe it's only John Compton and Mike Brock, but there may be others, too.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
dev post invalidates that build.
I had characters like that. I rebuild the characters using Ultimate Campaign. This is bob's problem. Considering I'm bob, it is my problem. Not the GM's.
Bob/I shouldn't have used shaky RAW ground to build my character.
Full Disclosure: I've got 3 PFS builds with a total in levels of 26 that I won't be playing again until I rebuild them. Due to this sort of thing. Invalidated by forum post or FAQ/Errata, it doesn't matter how it is invalidated.
Edit: Also my current character is a Sunder/Grapple specialist. I've got FAQ transscripts and forum posts by devs copied into the character sheet for 8 issues if I remember correctly. 8 things GM's say "it doesn't work that way" and I need to have ready access should they disagree. Most don't but some do and I need to be ready fast or I just drop the issue. It isn't worth sweating the issue out over the table while others are waiting.
|
|
He made a good point when he made that post. You SHOULDN'T need to have "extensive lists" of quotes that appeared in random posts throughout the website to keep things working. On top of that, you'd get situations where you had dev comments that contradicted OTHER dev quotes which only created MORE debate.I completely agree that his stance hurts the game.
I take every opportunity to point that out. Especially in cases like this.
It's like, we were finally making progress, and many of us had extensive lists of quotes that clarified or ended many rules arguments, but with just one comment it all got tossed out of the window.
But haven't you noticed the tone of debates has gotten nastier since he made that comment?
Before, when someone asked a question, we could reply with a Developer quote, and move on. There may have still been some debate, but another Developer comment could end it all.
Now, when we do the same thing, we're told "Stephen says that's not RAW", and the rules debate continues and froths until Mark has time to draft up an FAQ, and then it just leads to more fighting about the FAQ.
We had answers to questions before. Now, those answers are worthless, and we start over from square one.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, when we do the same thing, we're told "Stephen says that's not RAW", and the rules debate continues and froths until Mark has time to draft up an FAQ, and then it just leads to more fighting about the FAQ.
We had answers to questions before. Now, those answers are worthless, and we start over from square one.
Which I'm so sick of hearing that line "dev comments don't count". Some people just want to be right and can't accept that the rule might have multiple interpretations or that they are on the wrong side of how the rules are written.
We had answers to questions before. Now, those answers are worthless, and we start over from square one.
You also had multiple and often contradictory answers. You also had answers that ended up NOT matching the FAQ when they came out. And they where only answers for those that combed the message board posts for them and collected them up. The average casual poster didn't have the same answers unless they happened upon them and even when they did, had no idea if there where others that might shed a different light (or where newer). I'm not seeing it as a better solution than having an ACTUAL FAQ section for answers.
Neither applicable nor related. This is in the Guide to PFS Organized Play and specifically says "posts by campaign leadership". Other Paizo employees aren't campaign leadership. I believe it's only John Compton and Mike Brock, but there may be others, too.Well, how about this. Say that a GM is aware of Stephen Radney-MacFarland's post that laid down the hard line rule that Developer commentary isn't official. Wouldn't pointing to THAT mean that they could ignore any other messageboard posts? Doing otherwise would be breaking the rule you pointed out.
So if the GM isn't aware of a post, but is made aware of the post, then they have to abide by it.
Then this and that are different things. Imbicatus was talking about DEV posts in general and that's what you replying to (and what I was responding to).
You also had multiple and often contradictory answers. You also had answers that ended up NOT matching the FAQ when they came out. And they where only answers for those that combed the message board posts for them and collected them up. The average casual poster didn't have the same answers unless they happened upon them and even when they did, had no idea if there where others that might shed a different light (or where newer). I'm not seeing it as a better solution than having an ACTUAL FAQ section for answers.
We had answers to questions before. Now, those answers are worthless, and we start over from square one.
The problem being that the actual FAQs generally come out at a positively glacial rate, exacerbated by the horrendously slow errata process. I think it's rather shameful that half a year after the release of the error-riddled ACG the only significant issue that's been addressed is Pummeling Style.
The problem being that the actual FAQs generally come out at a positively glacial rate, exacerbated by the horrendously slow errata process. I think it's rather shameful that half a year after the release of the error-riddled ACG the only significant issue that's been addressed is Pummeling Style.You also had multiple and often contradictory answers. You also had answers that ended up NOT matching the FAQ when they came out. And they where only answers for those that combed the message board posts for them and collected them up. The average casual poster didn't have the same answers unless they happened upon them and even when they did, had no idea if there where others that might shed a different light (or where newer). I'm not seeing it as a better solution than having an ACTUAL FAQ section for answers.
We had answers to questions before. Now, those answers are worthless, and we start over from square one.
I'll agree there is an issue with the speed of errata/FAQ's. I'll REALLY agree with you the ACG. However, I can't see how random DEV posts in random threads helps much.
Now before anyone says anything, I LOVE to see dev posts. I'm more than willing to use them as RAI when the RAW is vague. I just don't see them as an 'I win' button' in any debate as the FAQ/errata's are a group effort and we're only hearing one voice from that group. I've not long ago seen a dev say "I'd have done it this way but I got overridden".