That post was mainly to be a summary of arguments against. The discussions have mostly been hashed over already.
Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action.
3. The change is from kitsune form (not from any form) to fox formWith Racial Heritage, you Human form IS your Kitsune form. They are one and the same thing, because it's not a template.
Interesting position. I don't agree, but interesting. (Also, novel to this thread, I believe.)
Made more interesting that you count human form as "kitsune" for a human, but by a strict reading, even a kitsune wouldn't be able to transform to a fox from human form. Thus, by your reading, the human gets a qualitatively greater morphological change from the feat than the (natural) kitsune does. That makes it difficult for me to agree.
Racial Heritage grants the racial type, but not the form. One can "count as kitsune" for spells and effects without having kitsune form.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it wasn't my argument, (I'm fairly neutral on the subject, myself, really), but it did come from this thread.
I do like to keep up with (PFS) ruling, though, and as a pet peeve, I hate table variation, (in PFS).
Generally speaking, when there is this sort of things at my table, my line of thinking is first to try to look up anything relevant related to the subject, including the Additional Resources if any, or any Official Online Rulings.
Secondly, I'll try to look through the different editions of the book, if I can, seeing if maybe there was a words change causing confusion, or take a look at the 3.5 Book and Sage Advice, if it's relevant, such as a Core Rule book issue. Once, I've done that myself, I absolutely open the floor to the other players. Now, normally, I've made an on the spot call already, after asking everyone's opinion on the matter, but I also tend to try to ere on the side of "thinking outside the box" and fun, but believable. Individual circumstances really play into things here, so it's case by case. If it turns out I was wrong, or there is a legit chance that I misinterpreted things, I have no problems with a retcon.
This sort of thing is a little bit outside of that, as it's obviously involves potentially an entire build, not just a single roll or action.
Plus, There's a bit of logical argument that can be made. The definition of "other forms" can be very ambiguous. 0 forms +1 still satisfies the formula "Gain fox shape in addition to your other forms".
-Question: Is the human able to transform into a fox from his "human form"?
-A: Yes.
-Maybe the base kitsune cannot transform to a fox while in human form, but this situation is different. Racial heritage states that "You count as both human and that race for any effects related to race. ... for the purpose of taking traits, feats, how spells and magic items affect you, and so on." This is just a fancy way of saying that for all intents and purposes, you ARE a kitsune, just that you don't gain any of their racial traits or useful physical characteristics. Therefore, your "human form" IS your "kitsune form", and thus you can switch from human form to fox shape as a standard action.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thus, by [DM Beckett's] reading, the human gets a qualitatively greater morphological change from the feat than the (natural) kitsune does.
Yes. Absolutely. 100%. Because the Human took a feat to be partly Kitsune. Of COURSE the character with 2 feats gets more benefits than the one with only 1.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The people who believe it's flat are wrong.
There is a difference between belief and looking at raw data and concluding it is flat. I'd wager no one believes it is flat from looking at data. They made the call that it was flat without data to back it up.
In this case, both sides read some English text and conclude it is flat or round based on the text.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
One was in the PFS Additional Resources, and shot down nearly immediately for being off topic.
That one was massively frustrating because it was on topic. Campaign leadership crafted those restrictions to block all things similar to Racial Heritage to fulfill prereqs. Without an explicit block, it is being argued those lines have no in game (or out of game) meaning and can be safely ignored.
Sure, since this has gone on to yet another page, I'll again point everyone to the OP, which 17 people have hit the FAQ button on. The other thread is more general and therefore more difficult for the PDT to address so this is still the best bet for receiving an actual verdict on this topic.
|
Any FAQ on this will be a blanket COMMON SENSE type of thing, if Tail Terror is any indication, we will need house rules.
My own thoughts is that any GM worth their salt would take one look and say "uh, no."
Still say the Shapeshifter Archtype would open up this feat, though I think it would need the 4th level capstone to do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure, since this has gone on to yet another page, I'll again point everyone to the OP, which 17 people have hit the FAQ button on. The other thread is more general and therefore more difficult for the PDT to address so this is still the best bet for receiving an actual verdict on this topic.
I definitely think it's quite possible for them to rule differently for each topic.
For example, one result I can quite easily see is that they rule "flavor is not important for determining pure rules, but as always, the GM has final say is his or her own games." But then they come over to the fox shape thread and say "The way this feat is written works differently from what is intended. The first line should read 'You can use your change shape ability to change into a fox.' This will be reflected in future errata."
This kind of situation is, in my opinion, ideal. Rules should read as rules read, because any lack of clarity creates these kinds of disagreements that we're experiencing in this very thread. Paizo is still very capable of changing text to suit the intention, but the fact that they have to change the text at all suggests that the previous rules were previously valid.
in fact, this is the kind of interaction that shows up in "potential errors" threads. I would be pretty willing to bet that if there was a known "fluff is not rules" ruling by paizo, I would have made this thread as a potential error thread, rather than a rules question.
Any FAQ on this will be a blanket COMMON SENSE type of thing
The trouble with common sense is that when you look at it from person to person, it is neither common nor sensible. What you want to say is "Any FAQ on this will rule against this interaction", and I don't believe any of us have the authority to assert that one way or the other.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Any FAQ on this will be a blanket COMMON SENSE type of thing, if Tail Terror is any indication, we will need house rules.
My own thoughts is that any GM worth their salt would take one look and say "uh, no."
Well me and my group don't see any issue flavour-wise, intent-wise, or gameplay-wise so I guess your view on the COMMON SENSE answer isn't clean cut.
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. It presupposes additional forms (plural)
I keep seeing this argument crop up, but it actually doesn't work that way.
The plural does not exclude the singular. It encompasses it.
An ability that alters your attacks still works if you only have one attack.
That is an indeterminate form as I said before
An ability that alters your attacks still works if you only have one attack.
The difference is that one may take a single attack in multiple rounds and thus the plural is achieved, and this hypothetical benefit applied multiple times. Attacks may not be the best example as the designers seem to be good about specifying "attacks" and "next attack". Perhaps you have a specific example?
Thus, I still do not find such an argument persuasive, although I have wrestled with it myself.
The plural does not exclude the singular. It encompasses it.
Because English is stupid and imprecise. This sort of thing is much easier in languages defined by formal grammars. However, as I described above, I do not find the particular example you gave persuasive.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
if there was a known "fluff is not rules" ruling by paizo, I would have made this thread as a potential error thread, rather than a rules question.
the fact that they have to change the text at all suggests that the previous rules were previously valid.
I agree with most of your post there like the first line, but they have changed text they thought was clear simply to make it more clear.
So a change in text doesn't mean "we didn't intend it to work that way so we changed it" but actually more like "ok it could be read two ways and we wanted to force it down one way of interpreting".
|
|
Well me and my group don't see any issue flavour-wise, intent-wise, or gameplay-wise so I guess your view on the COMMON SENSE answer isn't clean cut.Any FAQ on this will be a blanket COMMON SENSE type of thing, if Tail Terror is any indication, we will need house rules.
My own thoughts is that any GM worth their salt would take one look and say "uh, no."
That is fine for your group. There are other rule readings that may have a disagreement that the group may have trouble with otherwise, and the GM could nix a particular way that a player wants to use it. I would think a sensible group would sigh, nod, adjust and move on.
|
That's a PFS rule. Not standard. And Fox Shape isn't ARG anyway.can you link me this rule?
It is in the Additional Resources. You can see a detailed explanation in this post.
|
|
That's a PFS rule. Not standard. And Fox Shape isn't ARG anyway.It is a PFS rule and the only way you can trip that wire/rule is using Racial Heritage to make use of it. Yet some here suggest the rule has no meaning and therefore the prohibition isn't a prohibition at all.
I think you are greatly misrepresenting one of two possible arguments there.
A.) that by taking Racial Heritage, you become the other race and thus can take the racially restricted material. This is essentially a discussion of General vs Specific rules.
(Combat)
You can make additional attacks of opportunity.
Benefit: You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity per round equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Normal: A character without this feat can make only one attack of opportunity per round and can't make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed.
Special: The Combat Reflexes feat does not allow a rogue to use her opportunist ability more than once per round.
So, we can see from Combat Reflexes that normally one can not make an Attack of Opportunity (or AoO) when they are Flat Footed. That is to say, until they have acted for the first time, unless they have a special ability to prevent them from being caught Flat-Footed. This is a basic example of a "General" Rule.
However, we can see from the Feat itself that a character that has this Feat can in fact take an AoO while Flat-Footed, because that is (one of), the purposes of the Feat. This is an example of a "Specific" rule.
A General Rule sets the norm, and a Specific Rule gives the ability to do something that the General Rule disallows under some circumstances, for example, by having the Feat in question.
So, saying that having Racial Heritage makes the General (PFS only) Rule have no meaning is outright false. In fact, it's the exact opposite. It enforces it by allowing something to get by it, meaning, clearly, the Rule is normally applicable.
B.) that somehow a single rule that only pertains to a single book, (which is NOT the source of either of the Feats in question), is somehow being ignored or forgotten in an attempt to argue something as valid that any rational person would deny. That is likewise not the case.
That's a PFS rule. Not standard. And Fox Shape isn't ARG anyway.
can you link me this rule?
It is in the Additional Resources. You can see a detailed explanation in this post.
You might have made a mistake with the URL. Wasn't sure if it was intentional.
Pathfinder Player Companion: Dragon Empires Primer
Archetypes: all archetypes on pages 22-23; Feats: kitsune feats on page 5 are legal for kitsune characters; all feats on pages 24-25; Gods: All gods listed on pages 26-27; Other: Oni Bloodline, Void elemental school; Spells: call the void; Subdomains: Moon; Traits: all traits on pages 8-21 except Chosen Child and Rebel Leader. The boon restriction to create a kitsune, nagaji, and wayang was removed at the start of Season 6 and all three are now available for open creation.
vs
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide
To create an aasimar, dhampir, fetchling, grippli, goblin, ifrit, oread, ratfolk, samsaran, suli, sylph, tiefling, undine, or vishkanya character, you must have a Chronicle sheet that opens the race as a legal option at character creation. Aasimars and tieflings that were created and had at least one xp applied before August 14, 2014, remain legal for play. The boon restriction to create a kitsune, nagaji, and wayang was removed at the start of Season 6 and all three are now available for open creation.
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).
vs
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.
Solidsmoke Pipeweed Aura moderate conjuration; CL 7th
Slot none; Price 1,000 gp; Weight —
DESCRIPTION
When smoked in any pipe, this pinch of magical tobacco produces a languid, milky-white smoke that the smoker can transform into useful objects. A halfling who puffs on the pipe as a full-round action can shape the smoke into an object weighing no more than 5 pounds and having a maximum volume of 1 cubic foot. The halfling can, on following rounds, spend additional full-round actions to increase the object's weight by 2 additional pounds and its volume by another cubic foot. The halfling must succeed at an appropriate Craft check to make a complex item. If the halfling stops puffing on her pipe for any reason before she finishes creating the object, the figure in the smoke collapses and her pipe is extinguished. Objects created by solidsmoke pipeweed last for 24 hours before fading away into vapor. Objects created by the pipeweed have the same hardness, hit points, and other qualities as manufactured objects of their type, but look smoky and indistinct. Each pinch of solidsmoke pipeweed is sufficient for 3 full rounds of smoking. A single larger item must be created with a single pinch of solidsmoke pipeweed, so any item created with this pipeweed can't be larger than 9 pounds and 3 cubic feet. A halfling cannot create an object designed to exactly duplicate or replace another specific object. For instance, while she could create a smoky lock with its own key, she could not puff smoke into an existing keyhole and then create a key that would open that particular lock.
This smoke is caustic and chokes non-halflings. It grants non-halflings no benefits, and each time they spend a standard action to smoke the pipeweed, they are sickened for 1 round.
So, just for clarification, this discussion was on exactly is being talked about. The ARG came out with a very specific ruling that only the specific race could take racially specific options, but NOT including other races that normally could qualify, (for example a Half-Elf being able to take either Human Only or Elf Only options, since thy count as both). The ruling was that, for the ARG ONLY, no they couldn't, and this ONLY applied to the ARG, but not any other book.
|
|
One was in the PFS Additional Resources, and shot down nearly immediately for being off topic.That one was massively frustrating because it was on topic.
I meant to get back to this last night and it slipped my mind. I agree, it was rather frustrating. While I'm not certain the Additional Resources discussion was 100% the place, it was still, in my opinion not "off topic" either.
These boards really do have a strange gauge for on and off topic, sometimes.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
that by taking Racial Heritage, you become the other race and thus can take the racially restricted material.
The best I can understand from asking around, the reason that line was added to additional resources was to specifically handle Racial Heritage but was left vague to cover any other "count as X race" effects also.
As a result, you can't carry on any sort of discussion on the matter. As soon as you say a Human with Racial Heritage, you would get interrupted with "you can't it is blocked in the Additional Resources" and the discussion abruptly ends.
