| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read the Thunder and Fang feat.
Tell me, why would anyone think that one can wield 2 Two Handed weapons and Two Weapon Fight with them? Why would they think that they can wield an oversized Two Handed Weapon with this feat?
Because they ignored the "fluff."
Please point to me where the ruling is that you cannot use two earth breakers with this feat, because it is the same situation. As written, it simply allows you to use an earth-breaker as a one-handed weapon. A one-handed weapon can be used in either hand, albeit at quite a hefty penalty. A Large earthbreaker can be used as a one-handed weapon. And, as per the rules of oversized weapons, you can wield a large one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.
---
As for "common sense", my common sense tells me that the feat tells you exactly how it works, tells you that you can do it, and doesn't require you to use anything else a character might possess.
My common sense tells me that a human with the feat has the blood of the kitsune, and my common sense tells me that it's very easily explained that some of the magic of that blood manifests into this shapechange ability.
But here's the thing. You say "Take the feat in it's total, don't pick and choose."
To that, I say (and again, these are all example that have all already been brought up in this thread)
Cleave only requires one attack roll which is compared against both targets' AC. Cleave states "strike two adjacent foes with a single swing." Take the feat as a whole, don't pick and choose.
Artful dodge requires that you be threatened by more than one opponent in order to gain its benefits. Artful dodge states "You are practiced at avoiding attacks when outnumbered." Take the feat as a whole, don't pick and choose.
Do you see the point I am making? The point I am making is that if you open that can of worms, you throw the entire system into disarray due to fluff, especially because there is zero written precedent for "sometimes you read rules from the italics sections here and here". If you're going to argue that fluff is a requirement in fox shape, then you must concede that fluff is important for every feat, and I think we both know that isn't correct.
|
My understanding is that in PFS, a Human with Racial Heritage (Kitsune) WOULD in fact be able to legally take the otherwise normally Kitsune only Feats and Options.The part in the Additional Resources Doc you missed reads as follows:
Note: Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, racial evolutions, racial feats, and racial spells are only available for characters of the associated race. Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).The enter on the Dragon Empires Primer could be read either way, so I'd say ask your VO about it. But it sounds like they are limiting it to kitsune race only for PFS
Not at all.
The blood of a non-human ancestor flows in your veins.
Prerequisite: Human.
Benefit: Choose another humanoid race. You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. For example, if you choose dwarf, you are considered both a human and a dwarf for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on.
That is exactly what Racial Heritage does. Just like a Half-Elf can take any Human only or Elf only options, because they are both an Elf and a Human.
|
Except for Pathfinder Society Organized Play no, racial heritage does NOT let you take feats, racial traits, and racial talents from another race that are in the Advanced Race Guide. Thus why the additional resources doc under Advanced Race Guide says they "are only available for characters of the associated race." A human with racial heritage: kitsune could take the Kitsune Trickster archtype in PFS play, but not the feats.
For NON-PFS games it's perfectly legal, unless the gm says it isn't.
|
Read the Thunder and Fang feat.
Tell me, why would anyone think that one can wield 2 Two Handed weapons and Two Weapon Fight with them? Why would they think that they can wield an oversized Two Handed Weapon with this feat?
Because they ignored the "fluff."
Please point to me where the ruling is that you cannot use two earth breakers with this feat, because it is the same situation. As written, it simply allows you to use an earth-breaker as a one-handed weapon. A one-handed weapon can be used in either hand, albeit at quite a hefty penalty. A Large earthbreaker can be used as a one-handed weapon. And, as per the rules of oversized weapons, you can wield a large one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon.
---
As for "common sense", my common sense tells me that the feat tells you exactly how it works, tells you that you can do it, and doesn't require you to use anything else a character might possess.
My common sense tells me that a human with the feat has the blood of the kitsune, and my common sense tells me that it's very easily explained that some of the magic of that blood manifests into this shapechange ability.
But here's the thing. You say "Take the feat in it's total, don't pick and choose."
To that, I say (and again, these are all example that have all already been brought up in this thread)
Cleave only requires one attack roll which is compared against both targets' AC. Cleave states "strike two adjacent foes with a single swing." Take the feat as a whole, don't pick and choose.
Artful dodge requires that you be threatened by more than one opponent in order to gain its benefits. Artful dodge states "You are practiced at avoiding attacks when outnumbered." Take the feat as a whole, don't pick and choose.Do you see the point I am making? The point I am making is that if you open that can of worms, you throw the entire system into disarray due to fluff, especially because there is zero written precedent for "sometimes you read rules from the...
Thunder and Fang.
There is a huge thread about this. Basically, the feat is used in concert with the Earthbreaker and Klar, as the description text tells you. Because there is a period instead of a comma in a particular point in the feat rules, a lot of players have tried to make the weapon into something that it is not.
It is a Two Handed Weapon, no matter how you are able to use it otherwise. The feat allows for it to be used with a Klar (or by itself with a loose translation), but the character still can not wield two (2) Two Handed Weapons, even if he can wield one in one hand. When you have an oversized one, you are no longer using it in one hand, and the point becomes mute. (It is still an oversized Two Handed Weapon)
Never, in anyway, does the Earth Breaker ever change it's own design, the ability is the character wielding it in such a way to compensate for it being a Two Handed Weapon.
It is also a debate that is no longer needed as there are a couple of other (Easier?) ways now to wield an oversized Two Handed weapon without bending/twisting the rules on this feat.
Cleave requires two attacks in the feat because that is how it is explained in the feat. The description flavor sets up the overall flavor of the feat, the rules explain how it is achieved.
Artful Dodge explains itself in the rules text after the description in the same way.
With Fox Shape, the fact that the character is supposed to already have a second form in order to gain a third is an intended circumstance of being a Kitsune. If you take this as a human (with Racial Heritage), you still need the second form, else you don't have the bases to perform the third. But it isn't in the rules text, it refers to it in the description. (Other Forms)
We are disagreeing here, I erred on the side of caution, others siding with wanting it so much. "But it doesn't say that I can't use this"
The OP asked this knowing that it might not be allowed, for one reason or another.
For the other poster, tusks are a part of one's teeth, so the feat can work for the human (with Racial Heritage). Assume the canines grow... a lot.
For the poster that asked, a Tibbit is a race that was in the Dragon Annual that is a halfling like race that can turn into a house cat at will.
|
|
Except for Pathfinder Society Organized Play no, racial heritage does NOT let you take feats, racial traits, and racial talents from another race that are in the Advanced Race Guide. Thus why the additional resources doc under Advanced Race Guide says they "are only available for characters of the associated race." A human with racial heritage: kitsune could take the Kitsune Trickster archtype in PFS play, but not the feats.
For NON-PFS games it's perfectly legal, unless the gm says it isn't.
Citation please.
I am not seeing a conflict in the rules here.
_____ is only allowed for "A".
Racial Heritage makes you into "A".
Therefore, Racial Heritage allows you to take ______ only allowed for "A".
It's also worth noting that the "rule" for the Advanced Races Guide only applies to the Advanced Races Guide, and Fox Form is not from that book. It is not a blanket statement for each and every single Racial Trait, Feat, Archetype, etc. . . Otherwise it wouldn't be a note under the Advanced Race Guide and instead would be found in the Guide to PFS as a universal rule that applied to everything.
For the other poster, tusks are a part of one's teeth, so the feat can work for the human (with Racial Heritage). Assume the canines grow... a lot.
But that's not naturally in human anatomy. Teeth don't grow to be that large! Only by having an ancestor as an orc(or half-orc) could you ever grow teeth large enough for such a flavorful bite attack. But you seem to be arguing that Racial Heritage doesn't give humans anything they do not naturally possess. Humans don't naturally possess tusks!
Or, we can assume that humans do meet that fluff prerequisite, and have their teeth grow to match the flavor of the Razortusk feat, on account of their orc heritage.
And with that, we can assume that humans do meet the fluff prerequisite of Fox Shape, allowed the ability to change into a fox on account of their Kitsune heritage.
Both of these feats work, or neither of them do. They both have implied fluff prerequisites, which seem to bar you access for feats. Which is it?
Contributor
|
Except for Pathfinder Society Organized Play no, racial heritage does NOT let you take feats, racial traits, and racial talents from another race that are in the Advanced Race Guide. Thus why the additional resources doc under Advanced Race Guide says they "are only available for characters of the associated race." A human with racial heritage: kitsune could take the Kitsune Trickster archtype in PFS play, but not the feats.
For NON-PFS games it's perfectly legal, unless the gm says it isn't.
Citation please.
I am not seeing a conflict in the rules here.
_____ is only allowed for "A".
Racial Heritage makes you into "A".
Therefore, Racial Heritage allows you to take ______ only allowed for "A".
I did a quick search of both Michael Brock's and John Compton's posts, and found nothing.
|
|
I believe it was actually mentioned that this was a personal, face to face conversation. (I didn't have it, and I'm not claiming to. I was just saying that the comparison to the Kobold Tail isn't really a good one as it's not talking about the same thing).
I do find it a bit ironic that there was a discussion just a few days ago about how PFS DMs do not have the right to deny someone playing a perfectly legal option, regardless of how they feel about it at their table.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP asked this knowing that it might not be allowed, for one reason or another.
It's important to remember that I am the OP. When I asked, I was unsure if there was some ruling against it. From how this discussion has evolved, I am now fully convinced that it works as it is written.
It is a Two Handed Weapon, no matter how you are able to use it otherwise. The feat allows for it to be used with a Klar (or by itself with a loose translation), but the character still can not wield two (2) Two Handed Weapons, even if he can wield one in one hand. When you have an oversized one, you are no longer using it in one hand, and the point becomes mute. (It is still an oversized Two Handed Weapon)
Please cite the source that states that particular restriction. It doesn't say "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon except during X or Y" it simply says "You can use an earth breaker as though it were a one-handed weapon".
If you can use it as if it were a one-handed weapon, that means you can use it as if it were a one-handed weapon. You can wield one in your off-hand as if it were a one-handed weapon, including all rules implications of wielding it as a one-handed weapon.
"There is a huge thread on this" is not an answer to a rules question. From what I gather in context, it is apparently also in debate. But this thread is not a thunder and fang thread, though I will say that I take the same stance there as I do here for the same reasons.
It is also a debate that is no longer needed as there are a couple of other (Easier?) ways now to wield an oversized Two Handed weapon without bending/twisting the rules on this feat.
Whether or not something is necessary is not an answer to whether or not something is possible.
Cleave requires two attacks in the feat because that is how it is explained in the feat. The description flavor sets up the overall flavor of the feat, the rules explain how it is achieved.
Artful Dodge explains itself in the rules text after the description in the same way.
This is the exact separation of flavor and rules that I am arguing my case for. I don't have to change these statements at all to see them as evidence supporting my argument.
With Fox Shape, the fact that the character is supposed to already have a second form in order to gain a third is an intended circumstance of being a Kitsune.
I'm not asking for intended. I'm asking for rules as written. Stop telling me what you believe is RAI, because I am asking for RAW.
If you take this as a human (with Racial Heritage), you still need the second form, else you don't have the bases to perform the third. But it isn't in the rules text, it refers to it in the description. (Other Forms)
Why do you argue that it's okay for a character with artful dodge ignore the description saying that you have to be outnumbered because it isn't in the rules text, yet argue that a human DOESN'T ignore the description, even though it isn't in the rules text?
For the poster that asked, a Tibbit is a race that was in the Dragon Annual that is a halfling like race that can turn into a house cat at will.
Not to target this post specifically, but rather the entire argument that humans would be stepping on other race's toes, I have two things to say.
1) How, then, is the kitsune who takes the fox shape feat not stepping on the toes of the Tibbit?
2) What, then, is the human supposed to do with racial heritage, if not somehow step on the toes of another race's abilities?
Arguing that you're stepping on the toes of other races actually reminds me of the recent tumblr trend of "cultural appropriation". Which I hope you agree is a silly concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As Kalindlara said, this is technically not the place to have that particular discussion, and I'm sorry I brought it up.
The rest of my post still stands, though.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My point is that I'm providing examples and evidence, but I've only been seeing the same counter-argument over and over.
My point is that I don't believe or see anything you (or anyone else) have provided as evidence. I see all the evidence from the other side of your point of view as compelling evidence.
Do you see why this thread won't sway either side? Both calls the other side's "evidence" non-evidence.
My point is that I don't believe or see anything you (or anyone else) have provided as evidence. I see all the evidence from the other side of your point of view as compelling evidence.
Can you explain why my evidence is not compelling while theirs is?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
alters another specific rules element is a recent change in policy.
I suspect the change is due to forum discussions like this one. ^_^
Pretty sure you are right, and yes it helps fix issues like this whole thread. A line like "This alters Change Self" would clarify which of the sides are correct RAW.
Fox Form ... it's perfectly legal.
The legality is dependent on the GM's interpretations of RAW.
I don't really understand why this thread is continuing on (and on and on and on...)
If it's *not* PFS, the answer is whatever your GM says it is.
It continues because some people are "the player not the GM dictate how a rule works".
Can you explain why my evidence is not compelling while theirs is?
Your interpretation requires adding or interpreting the rules in a "most beneficial way" while simultaneously ignoring anything counter to your interpretation.
Theirs requires extending meaning from "in addition to your other forms" to be a reference to Change Shape.
Neither proves the case, so both interpretations can be valid. The GM is the only valid arbiter to which interpretation is valid in their game.
Your interpretation requires adding or interpreting the rules in a "most beneficial way" while simultaneously ignoring anything counter to your interpretation.
Theirs requires extending meaning from "in addition to your other forms" to be a reference to Change Shape.
Neither proves the case, so both interpretations can be valid. The GM is the only valid arbiter to which interpretation is valid in their game.
At what point have I ignored anything countering my interpretation? Please show me a point someone brought up that I have not addressed.
Tell me, why would anyone think that one can wield 2 Two Handed weapons and Two Weapon Fight with them?
If you're mounted, you absolutely can use two lances.
Why is this going on for nearly 600 posts? It's a clear situation - it's a poorly worded rule. Some people think that the literal text holds and that anyone who spends two feats can gain the rather minor benefit of being able to change into a fox. Some people think that this is ridiculously overpowered and obviously not what anyone intended. What does the conversation prove?
|
|
For me, I enjoy reading the different sides, and I'd like to know for sure if something is legit or not, based on the related rules. It can also help to understand other, unrelated, but similar rules issues.
It also does seem that the presented evidence has switched a few peoples minds after seeing it.
|
Contributor
|
Regardless of whether you believe this is legal or not, I'd like to point out that this is actually quite a powerful ability, and one which you can create entire builds around. It's not just some "minor ability".
This is correct. I'd wonder whether it's significantly more powerful on a human - who essentially spent their racial bonus feat to qualify - than on a kitsune, though.
I mean, kitsune:
-+2 Dex/Cha, -2 Str
-agile
-bonus to enchantment DCs
-low-light vision
-human/kitsune forms
-bite attack
While human:
-+2 any score
-skilled
It seems like allowing humans to use it won't be much worse than kitsune having it. Am I wrong here?
|
Kalindra,
Humans won't acquire the shapeshifter subtype, like kitsune. Although rarely used anyway the shapechanger subtype is far more common than humanoid(kitsune) where bane and favored enemies are concerned.
Most fox shape build will favor dex so there is no real difference between the two. However, since humans can opt to place their stat points anywhere, it is more advantageous for builds that don't favor dexterity. So humans win with flexibility.
Since even PFS legality seems to be in contention, and I don't want to see them at my table I will not share the builds that come to mind, but I'm sure clever people can figure them out and more.
Reversing your question:
Why haven't the pro-human fox shifters simply stated what the real intent of their build is? I ask because most Kitsune I play with simply stay in human form anyway choosing to appear human. Between the CHA bonus of Kitsune with +10 disguise granted by their shapechange ability they simply are humans except from all but the most observant.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why haven't the pro-human fox shifters simply stated what the real intent of their build is? I ask because most Kitsune I play with simply stay in human form anyway choosing to appear human. Between the CHA bonus of Kitsune with +10 disguise granted by their shapechange ability they simply are humans except from all but the most observant.
This is simultaneously begging the question AND irrelevant.
You assume that I have a build that depends on it. In reality, I just was randomly browsing feats for an unrelated build when I found this, and thought it seemed interesting enough to share. I (And my GM) now both personally believe it works 100%, and even still I don't think I'll be building a character on it.
In addition, what it would be used for is irrelevant to whether or not it is a legal rules interaction.
Once again, I must stress: I am going by the same strict interpretation of the rules as I almost always default to on these forums, and this strict sentence-by-sentence analysis has caused me to be of the opinion that it works. And that is the definition of RAW.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kalindra,
Humans won't acquire the shapeshifter subtype, like kitsune. Although rarely used anyway the shapechanger subtype is far more common than humanoid(kitsune) where bane and favored enemies are concerned.
Most fox shape build will favor dex so there is no real difference between the two. However, since humans can opt to place their stat points anywhere, it is more advantageous for builds that don't favor dexterity. So humans win with flexibility.
Since even PFS legality seems to be in contention, and I don't want to see them at my table I will not share the builds that come to mind, but I'm sure clever people can figure them out and more.
Reversing your question:
Why haven't the pro-human fox shifters simply stated what the real intent of their build is? I ask because most Kitsune I play with simply stay in human form anyway choosing to appear human. Between the CHA bonus of Kitsune with +10 disguise granted by their shapechange ability they simply are humans except from all but the most observant.
To your initial thoughts: you say the shapechanger subtype is more common than kitsune subtype for bane and FE. What about the human subtype? It's the most common bane/FE I've ever seen. Between that and the anti-polymorph powers of the shapechanger subtype, humans seem to be at a heavy disadvantage there.
I don't know why my intent is under question - the phrasing there is interesting. I simply like interesting rules interactions and customizable characters (and also non-anthro foxgirls). ^_^
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
No.
Fox shape is not the ability to turn into a fox. Its an alteration of the change shape ability that a kitsune already has. Without having that change shape ability to start with, the feat does nothing.
Fox Shape (Kitsune)
You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.
Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.
Special: A kitsune may select this feat any time she would gain a feat.
Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit, but you gain a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear as a fox. Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.
This power would give a human with Racial Heritage Kitsune the power to turn into a fox and back as a standard action lasting 1 min per level as this feat acts as the Beast Shape 2 spell that only allows the fox shape. This ruling comes from the lead game designers.
|
|
Johnny_Devo:
By RAW it works, due to wording of a feat that didn't take into consideration the future publishing of overlapping material (Kitsune in the ARG) in conjunction with the racial heritage feat. Unless FAQ'd there will be no peace on the forums because they won't errata the Primer.
RAI, its obvious not intended to work with the application of common sense, but it boils down to what kind of game you wish to play in. I wouldn't allow this combo in a home game as a player option, but would willingly grant it boon-wise through the campaign if it went in that direction.
Semi-off topic:
I play games with the intent of the designers in mind. Even video games that have cheat codes, because once I use the code the game ceases to be fun within the day. The magic is simply gone. These options feel like that, and I enjoy Pathfinder to much to use an option with quasi-legality.
Since we are at 600+ with no concensus, I believe the quasi-legality label currently stands.
No new info has really come up but I am curious about the PFS legality ruling, as I haven't looked into it myself.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for Pathfinder Society Organized Play no, racial heritage does NOT let you take feats, racial traits, and racial talents from another race that are in the Advanced Race Guide. Thus why the additional resources doc under Advanced Race Guide says they "are only available for characters of the associated race." A human with racial heritage: kitsune could take the Kitsune Trickster archtype in PFS play, but not the feats.
For NON-PFS games it's perfectly legal, unless the gm says it isn't.
Citation please.
I am not seeing a conflict in the rules here.
_____ is only allowed for "A".
Racial Heritage makes you into "A".
Therefore, Racial Heritage allows you to take ______ only allowed for "A".
It's also worth noting that the "rule" for the Advanced Races Guide only applies to the Advanced Races Guide, and Fox Form is not from that book. It is not a blanket statement for each and every single Racial Trait, Feat, Archetype, etc. . . Otherwise it wouldn't be a note under the Advanced Race Guide and instead would be found in the Guide to PFS as a universal rule that applied to everything.
The entry in the additional resources doc IS the citation. It's saying that only the specific race can take the racial feats and traits in Advanced Race Guide in PFS. This line is probably there precisely because of racial heritage.
And as I'd said, I'm unsure of exactly what the Additional Resource Document means for dragon empires primer. Does it mean only someone who's character race is kitsune can take the feats? Does it mean only kitsune and someone with racial heritage: kitsune can take them? I'm not sure, it's a little ambiguous on this.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAI, its obvious not intended to work with the application of common sense
That is your opinion. In my opinion, allowing it to work for a human descended from kitsune is much more common-sense than disallowing it.
Semi-off topic:
I play games with the intent of the designers in mind.
So do many of us. Can you show us where the designers have said this isn't their intent?
Even video games that have cheat codes, because once I use the code the game ceases to be fun within the day. The magic is simply gone. These options feel like that, and I enjoy Pathfinder to much to use an option with quasi-legality.
Please do not accuse us of cheating just because we have a different interpretation. Rhetoric like that does your side of the argument a disservice, and makes the thread more hostile to post in.
|
Contributor
|
And as I'd said, I'm unsure of exactly what the Additional Resource Document means for dragon empires primer. Does it mean only someone who's character race is kitsune can take the feats? Does it mean only kitsune and someone with racial heritage: kitsune can take them? I'm not sure, it's a little ambiguous on this.
I'm also very curious about this. ^_^
|
|
It continues because some people are "the player not the GM dictate how a rule works".
I can't speak for anyone else, but I AM looking at the issue from a GM point of view. I don't have the book the feat comes from yet. I don't have a character who would use the feat. But it is something I could see coming up, so knowing the rules behind it is important.
|
|
RAI, its obvious not intended to work with the application of common senseThat is your opinion. In my opinion, allowing it to work for a human descended from kitsune is much more common-sense than disallowing it.
Semi-off topic:
I play games with the intent of the designers in mind.So do many of us. Can you show us where the designers have said this isn't their intent?
Even video games that have cheat codes, because once I use the code the game ceases to be fun within the day. The magic is simply gone. These options feel like that, and I enjoy Pathfinder to much to use an option with quasi-legality.Please do not accuse us of cheating just because we have a different interpretation. Rhetoric like that does your side of the argument a disservice, and makes the thread more hostile to post in.
1) Yes, opinions are in abundance in this topic. Do not fault me for mine.
2) Doesn't matter if I could produce designer intent (I can't). RAW is RAW. It has been stated in this topic multiple times. However, I was discussing video games as an analogy to Pathfinder.
3) No accusations of cheating were made. Hence the phrasing "it feels like...". I invite you to earlier posts in this thread to see true hostility without provocation.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAI, its obvious not intended to work with the application of common senseThat is your opinion. In my opinion, allowing it to work for a human descended from kitsune is much more common-sense than disallowing it.
Semi-off topic:
I play games with the intent of the designers in mind.So do many of us. Can you show us where the designers have said this isn't their intent?
Even video games that have cheat codes, because once I use the code the game ceases to be fun within the day. The magic is simply gone. These options feel like that, and I enjoy Pathfinder to much to use an option with quasi-legality.Please do not accuse us of cheating just because we have a different interpretation. Rhetoric like that does your side of the argument a disservice, and makes the thread more hostile to post in.1) Yes, opinions are in abundance in this topic. Do not fault me for mine.
2) Doesn't matter if I could produce designer intent (I can't). RAW is RAW. It has been stated in this topic multiple times.
3) No accusations of cheating. Hence the word "It feels like". I invite you to earlier posts in this thread to see true hostility without provocation.
1) You are entitled to your opinion, and I don't fault you for it. However, when you say "RAI, it's obvious if you apply common sense", you're claiming your opinion as fact.
2) If you can't produce designer intent, then why did you claim to know it? Phrasing it like that is an appeal to authority, via an implicit claim that the designers agree with you.
3) The hostility of others is not relevant to the content of your post, or the content of mine. (These boards could do with a lot less hostility in general.)
However, I misinterpreted your post re: "it feels like", and I apologize.
|
Contributor
|
And now, a simi-related question... Could an aerokinetic using Fox Shape still fire their kinetic blasts? I've been getting this highly amusing image of a nine tailed fox launching bolts of electricity and bursts of painful air at badguys while sitting on someone's shoulder.
Both kineticists and psychic casters should function just fine under the effects of Fox Shape. I'm tempted to play a kitsune mesmerist.
(As for riding someone's shoulder, I'd have to think about that... are they a mount? Are you ?mounted"? Would you need Ride checks in similar circumstances to horse riding? Can you use Mounted Combat to protect them? So many questions...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Asking the developers to either chime in or let me post their answer I told you about above. Let you all know when they do.