Using Racial Heritage to get access to weird race abilities like fox form, a tail, a grippli tongue, and all this other stuff makes me think that these specific humans are mutants..
Oh god they're X-Men!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Using Racial Heritage to get access to weird race abilities like fox form, a tail, a grippli tongue, and all this other stuff makes me think that these specific humans are mutants..
Oh god they're X-Men!
It's the point of sorcerer bloodlines too but I didn't see anyone complaining or being sassy about them
Well thats an easy answer.... its because this is a feat.. and therefore a possible martial option and therefore must not be allowed. Clearly. Sorcs are MAGIC and therefore get a pass.
I get the narrative but those abilities can be taken with the Eldritch Herigate feat line too
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well thats an easy answer.... its because this is a feat.. and therefore a possible martial option and therefore must not be allowed. Clearly. Sorcs are MAGIC and therefore get a pass.I get the narrative but those abilities can be taken with the Eldritch Herigate feat line too
But see thats a feat based on a CASTER.,. so its fine.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It's the point of sorcerer bloodlines too but I didn't see anyone complaining or being sassy about them
The main difference is there isn't any debate on the meaning of Sorcerer bloodline abilities, like there is debate in this thread.
You and other also attribute it unfairly and inappropriately to "martials can't have nice things" banner. That isn't what is going on here.
I actually agree with James on this point, regarding the martials and nice things banner.
Their reasoning has nothing to do with whether martials can get it, but rather anyone at all can get it. If they were saying that casters can get fox shape as a human but martials cannot, then there'd be room to make that accusation, but I don't think anyone is saying that.
|
The purpose of the game is to have fun. If the issue results in no fun you should walk away, GM or player alike. Unfortunately, the GMs are in higher demand than players, so unless you are willing to step up to the plate and run the scenario (still denying you the use of the questionable character), perhaps a less confrontational method is in order. The GM is the rules judge. My VC is welcome to overturn my decisions after I've made them, but this reeks of running to Mom when Dad says no and feels childish.
Perhaps a conversation with the GM prior to the event that your build is open to table variation and going with the GMs call or play a different character.
Since this beast of a topic won't die, it's safe to say there is variation in opinion so expect table variation.
The only thing left to cover is hitting the FAQ if this topic deserves it I'm your opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can figure out some convoluted way to get a fly speed without wingsIt's not that convoluted, you can do it with the Fire/Air/Aether Kineticist, Wings of Air on a Sylph or in general any kind of Supernatural flight at will.
So you'd be using the Wing Buffet mechanics to hit people with telekinetic bursts of air, or something like that?
Sounds super cool. I'd totally allow that. Its clever, interesting, and certainly not overpowered.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS one just has to accept that some things are ambiguous and there WILL be table variation.
Its pretty clear that this particular issue is NOT clear cut. The group is NOT coming to consensus. Please admit that much. The issue is NOT clear cut, even if you think it is.
That means that playing this character in PFS will potentially result in the GM going "no, you can't use that feat at my table". That is not only the GMs right, it is their DUTY to disallow things they honestly think are illegal.
Ambiguous, perhaps unfortunately, does mean "GM wins". Hopefully after due consideration of the arguments presented.
But what is the alternative? Allow any player interpretation to automatically win? We've all seen some completely off the wall player interpretations. If that ever becomes the rule I'll quit PFS.
In most home games, the process is a little more democratic but even there the GM generally has the final say.
I do understand that there is a disagreement about the combination of Feats. Based on the rules, though, I don't really understand what exactly the side saying it can't be done is really basing that view upon. It's been laid out pretty clear a few times how it, as written, should work, and a lot of the other arguments as well, (is it allowed in PFS because of what the ARG Additional Rules says), have also been pretty clearly refuted. That is, I quoted Mike Brock's ruling that only the specific race can take race specific options only, intentionally applies to the ARG, which Fox Form is not in.
Furthermore, there seems to be indication now, both here and elsewhere, that some folks that disagree are trying to push for PFS leadership to change the way Racial Heritage & Fox Form are written so that it is not allowed. To me, that seems to strongly imply that it does, and some folks do not like it.
But, all of this is kind of a moot point as if you read a lot of the things I said, I used terms like "arguably not legal". I don't mean this to throw anyone under the bus, but I have noticed at least two or three other forums recently where some of the more vocal folks here saying it's not legal have gone and tried to gather support to make a change in the rules to make this combination not work. Again, to me, that presupposes that they do in fact feel like it's a legal rules combination, but do not like it as an option, and want it to be changed to not work.
And finally, I wanted to get back to the DM part. I was speaking more specifically of PFS here, because it's pretty obvious that a DM in a home game can rule any way they want on anything they want. That goes without saying. But, in PFS, that's not acceptable or allowed. The "not at my table" mentality is a NoGo, unless there is a valid rules reason for it. By that, I mean a few possible things. One is the player does not have all the resources used in the character, like for example doesn't own or can not produce the APG or Dragon Empires Primer for the DM to be able to read all the information about the two Feats in question. That's a valid reason for the DM to say no, because that is in fact illegal in PFS. Or if there is actually a rule somewhere that shows that something is not being used correctly. *** And that is the biggest part of the issue for this case. There seems to be a pretty overwhelming assortment of evidence, rules evidence that shows it is legal, but none, or not much that says it is not.
So, in PFS, the DM's response should be exactly what I said above.
The proper DM response should be something along the lines of "lets take it up with someone higher than me to make the call, and I'll abide with whatever they say", NOT "No, because I don't like it".
But, very specifically, PFS GM do not have the ability to declare something illegal, or tell someone they can not play just because they don't like something.
Can a GM Ban something that is Legal.
Furthermore, this is actively bad for the PFS campaign as a whole, and the sort of attitude that is going to drive players away, not want them to come back.
In PFS, if there is an honest question, the DM's response is to ask a few other impartial DM's, and if it's still a question, then to take it up to a VL, VC, or Coordinator, and abide by their ruling. It is not to say no, not at my table.
Personally, I do not see enough of a problem to call tis questionable, assuming someone has read all of the rules involved to call this reasonably questionable. That's also why I have not FAQ'd it. I don't mean that to imply that anyone is stupid or wrong or bad. I just do not see enough evidence in the rules to say it can't be done without actually changing the rules or inventing a new rule to support that.
In fact, if Paizo or PFS does come in and make an official ruling, I do believe that that will be the only logical way they could, by changing the existing rules. And, as I've pointed out a few times, I have no horse in this race. I'm not fond of the Kitsune, I've never used Racial Heritage, and really don't plan on doing so. I DM much more than I play. This seems, thematically, to be precisely the function of the Feat Racial Heritage, and perfectly in line with it's intent and purpose. I also do not see it being particularly strong, I'd even say it's a pretty weak option, but possibly fun. With the possible exception of the Cleric, Paizo's stance has never been "If you want to do this one thing, you must play this ______ as the only option". Instead, overwhelmingly, it's "If you want to do _______, you can try _____, or ______, or even _______ to do it".
|
DM Becket, this is it in basic form.
The feat in question (Fox Form) assumes that the character is a Kitsune. That race has other form(s) that he shifts to, and the feat description alludes to that fact by the mention that this is an addition to the other form. (likely for a total of 3 forms) \
A human that takes this feat with Racial Heritage doesn't have a form that he shifts into already, so taking this feat alone most likely will not give him the ability it provides without that initial form that the Kitsune already have.
Now, it does not say anything about this in the rules text below, mostly because 9 times out of 10, it is a kitsune taking the feat anyway.
Now, this does not, in my mind, prevent the character from taking the feat (with Racial Heritage), but he can't use it without having the ability to do so. The feat by itself does not give that ability, it only adds to it.
PFS is a bit stricter, as it does say, as a "houserule," that only Kitsune can take this feat. This has been confirmed in the past, and I hope that the new Campaign Coordinator can update the Additional Resources to allow other races to take feats and traits through other means other than "being" that race. Specifically, I hope that the Goblin race feats and traits can be opened up in that way.
Hope that clears it up for ya!
|
|
I do understand that there is disagreement. I just don't really understand why. I mean, based off of what?
Secondarily, having read the entire thread up to about the 500th post before posting myself, I does actually look like there is a lot more consensus for it working than is suggested.
Without going through name by name, it looks like there is a total of 4 or 5 individuals against it, with everyone else saying that, by the rules, it should be legit. There is also some suggestion at least that some of those individuals might be trying to post under different aliases to boost their numbers. But I'm not sure on that last part. I didn't see it myself.
So, what exactly do you mean by consensus, or near consensus? How is that not already what's happening here? I mean obviously it's never going to be 100% : 0%. It never is. And I might be wrong, but it does seem like, overall, it's close to the 90% area. I might be wrong.
|
|
So, what exactly do you mean by consensus, or near consensus? How is that not already what's happening here? I mean obviously it's never going to be 100% : 0%. It never is. And I might be wrong, but it does seem like, overall, it's close to the 90% area. I might be wrong.
Obviously, I could be wrong, but what I'm seeing is lots of people getting bored with the fact that no new arguments have been made in a very long time and dropping the thread. I don't see people saying they were convinced.
It just seems to me that the "its legal" side are much more invested and refuse to let it drop.
That said, I'm dropping out. For the record, your arguments don't convince me but I have absolutely nothing new to say.
|
|
The number of individual posters here, for or against particulars, is not a fair account of how the overall issue is looked at by the PF players themselves. Some read this and roll their eyes, looking at either mine or others posts and scratching their heads, not seeing how one conclusion is even a consideration while the other should be the norm. Those don't even post here, knowing the circle of "is so/is not" is an ongoing debate.
RAW doesn't mean to completely throw out RAI. If something, such as this situation, would be made clearer by RAI (merited out in this situation with the description portion of the feat), it should be a part of the whole for RAW. Shouldn't need a FAQ, but one would be the definitive answer.
I wonder why anyone, for example, would let humans sprout tails for the Tail Terror feat. (or use their Booty, renaming it "Booty Bump")
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DM Becket, this is it in basic form.
The feat in question (Fox Form) assumes that the character is a Kitsune. That race has other form(s) that he shifts to, and the feat description alludes to that fact by the mention that this is an addition to the other form. (likely for a total of 3 forms) \
A human that takes this feat with Racial Heritage doesn't have a form that he shifts into already, so taking this feat alone most likely will not give him the ability it provides without that initial form that the Kitsune already have.
Now, it does not say anything about this in the rules text below, mostly because 9 times out of 10, it is a kitsune taking the feat anyway.
Now, this does not, in my mind, prevent the character from taking the feat (with Racial Heritage), but he can't use it without having the ability to do so. The feat by itself does not give that ability, it only adds to it.
But that's the thing. The Feat does in fact give you the ability, rather than altering something you can already do. It is a Feat that, normally, only a Kitsune can take because (and only because) the Prereq specifically calls out Kitsune as required. That is clearly something that Racial Heritage allows to be bypassed, almost exactly like you can use UMD to trick an item into being a different race/alignment/etc. . . The big difference here, though it you are not "tricking" anything. You actually are a Kitsune. As written, (intentionally or not), the Feat does actually grant a new ability, regardless of if the individual had some other ability. Most of the other arguments based around this also don't really hold water. So, for example, if it is Kitsune only, and then does modify the existing ability, technically speaking the Kitsune's natural Shapeshifting just became an unlimited EX ability, because like has been pointed out, the Feat doesn't actually call out that it's changed, or rather that it's not changed. Furthermore, the Feat actually works very much different than the actual Kitsune Shape Change.
(Su) A kitsune can assume the appearance of a specific single human form of the same sex. The kitsune always takes this specific form when she uses this ability. A kitsune in human form cannot use her bite attack, but gains a +10 racial bonus on Disguise checks made to appear human. Changing shape is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as alter self, except that the kitsune does not adjust her ability scores and can remain in this form indefinitely.
(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.
PFS is a bit stricter, as it does say, as a "houserule," that only Kitsune can take this feat. This has been confirmed in the past, and I hope that the new Campaign Coordinator can update the Additional Resources to allow other races to take feats and traits through other means other than "being" that race. Specifically, I hope that the Goblin race feats and traits can be opened up in that way.
Hope that clears it up for ya!
This is an error. The house rule (Additional Resources) quote is referencing the Adv Race Guide. PFS specifically asked if this applies to everything or just the ARG (where the ruling is made), and the official answer was it only applies to the ARG, not every other book or material that includes "race specific" options.
Alternate racial traits, racial archetypes, 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).
So, no, a half-orc or half-elf may not take a human-only feat.
Thanks for the quick response.
Does this change the previous forum post's ruling as well? Can a half-elf still be a Spire Defender Magus? Or does this only apply to the new Advanced Race Guide feats/archetypes/spells?
It does not apply to all previous rulings in other books. This applies to the Advanced Race Guide. You can find my official ruling in the Additional Resources.
HERE is the link to this ruling.
However, even if it did, those would be general rules, and the specific (exception) rule should override it. Again, this only matters IF the rule about race specific material applied to anything except the ARG. It doesn't though, so it's a moot argument.
|
|
The number of individual posters here, for or against particulars, is not a fair account of how the overall issue is looked at by the PF players themselves. Some read this and roll their eyes, looking at either mine or others posts and scratching their heads, not seeing how one conclusion is even a consideration while the other should be the norm. Those don't even post here, knowing the circle of "is so/is not" is an ongoing debate.
Certainly true, but this is really the only quantifiable place we can really turn to for consensus. As far as I can recall, all 3+ of the other threads about this subject where shot down for other reasons (this isn't the place).
|
|
The feat isn't in the ARG, though, and the book that it is in has different wording than the ARG. The Goblin book specifically has called out that only those with the Goblin Boon can take the feat in that book, going as far as saying that one can use the Boon to allow another race to take the feats (using Racial Heritage or something similar) instead of being a goblin.
Not going into specifics here, as this isn't the thread for it, but PFS wouldn't allow the Feat for a human because of how Additional Resources accounts for it.
Going into the differences, the reason it uses different spells is the form, not the ability. (Human uses Alter self, Fox uses Beast Shape) Not really a big departure, and uses the same Kitsune ability to effect the change into the different forms.
|
|
I wonder why anyone, for example, would let humans sprout tails for the Tail Terror feat.
Because they're part kobold and it's awesome.
That being said, nobody in this thread arguing for Fox Form is arguing that Tail Terror is RAW Functional for normal Racial Heritage Humans, because it requires a tail that they typically do not have [although a Racial Heritage Kobold human who polymorphs or Wildshapes into a form that has a tail COULD make use of that feat.]
Fox Form has no such requirements in the text.
"...if you ignore the descriptive text."
This is the key point. There is disagreement. The rules aren't crystal clear. At this point, it is irrelevant which side is "right".
There is disagreement on the shape of Earth. The people who believe it's flat are wrong. The fact that disagreement exists does not automatically mean all sides are equally valid.
And for the record, the rules ARE crystal clear.
q) Are you a Kitsune?a) well, I'm a human with Racial Heritage, so technically yes.
Great, you can turn into a fox because that's what the rules say.
The rules DON'T say you need have any other mechanism for shape change, so you don't need one. RAI should ONLY be used to clarify RAW, and only that when the RAW is murky. This was almost certainly an oversight, as all actual Kitsune have the ability to shapeshift. That fact changes nothing. If a rule becomes MORE confusing after you added RAI, you're moving in the wrong direction.
The problem here is the arguments for are varied and have stood up to repeated testing. The arguments against all fell apart 300 posts ago.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I explained several pages back why I would disallow it in my home games.
You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms [1].
Prerequisites: Cha 13, base attack bonus +3, kitsune.
Benefit: You can take the form of a fox (Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 112) whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced [2] 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 [3] is a standard action. This ability otherwise functions as beast shape II, and your ability scores change accordingly.
Namely:
1. It presupposes additional forms (plural)2. It presupposes a bite attack
3. The change is from kitsune form (not from any form) to fox form
In PFS specifically, the character is required by "Additional Resources" to be kitsune. Even if one were to accept the feat in a home game (despite the above), I do not accept that the Racial Heritage feat bypasses the requirement of the Additional Resources. I concede it bypasses the kitsune(racial) requirement of the prerequisite, but not that it provides (a) kitsune form presumed by Fox Shape (as mentioned above) or (b) makes the character a "kitsune character" as required by "Additional Resources".
Although the Racial Heritage feat permits taking feats with race prerequisites, I think it's a stretch to consider "Additional Resources" an "effect related to race".
The arguments against all fell apart 300 posts ago.
Um, no. There was just no purpose continuing to discuss, as reasonable people can reasonably disagree about things. Repeating the same contention would not contribute meaningfully, so I have not attempted "proof by repeated assertion." Silence is not the same as acquiescence.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The arguments against those are:
You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.
1. It presupposes additional forms (plural)
Not necessarily, plural, but rather encompassing. It could be meaning plural, but that's not really supported by the rest of the Feat. That is, between Fox and Human form, you still qualify as having more than one form. And it's more true to read "in addition to your other forms" as:
in addition to any other forms you might or might not haverather than to read it at meaning
in addition to the exactly two other forms you must have.
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.
2. It presupposes a bite attack
Beast Shape does in fact give your Fox Form a Bite Attack, even if you didn't already have one. Kitsune, (in "Kitsune" form) normally already have one, (which is 1d4), as does the Fox, (which is 1d3). This seems more to be clarification than anything. It doesn't require you already have a Bite Attack, but rather, because it actually gives you one in a limited fashion, jut calls out exactly what it is due to your new size in Fox Shape.
Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action.
3. The change is from kitsune form (not from any form) to fox form
With Racial Heritage, you Human form IS your Kitsune form. They are one and the same thing, because it's not a template.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want just to chime in to say that in english the plural is also used as an indeterminate form when the quantity is unknown
The number of individual posters here, for or against particulars, is not a fair account of how the overall issue is looked at by the PF players themselves. Some read this and roll their eyes, looking at either mine or others posts and scratching their heads, not seeing how one conclusion is even a consideration while the other should be the norm. Those don't even post here, knowing the circle of "is so/is not" is an ongoing debate.Certainly true, but this is really the only quantifiable place we can really turn to for consensus. As far as I can recall, all 3+ of the other threads about this subject where shot down for other reasons (this isn't the place).
There were other threads on this subject? I could've sworn I did a search before posting...
|
|
They where posted after this one, or in response to it. One was in the PFS Additional Resources, and shot down nearly immediately for being off topic. If you search again, they might show up, but like I said, my intent wasn't to call anyone out, so I don't want to throw up links (or names for that matter).