Balance-wise, it is just the same as a Kitsune with the same feat.
I mean, I am not seeing the problem.
No. Because instead of getting a bonus feat at first level, or an extra skill rank/hp at every level, a kitsune sinks a not-inconsiderable chunk of racial resources into their racial change shape (kitsune to human shape, and vice versa) ability. Regardless of the way Fox Shape is written, I think it's pretty clear the RAI was that it expands on the existing change shape.
Now, if you want a human with some kitsune ancestry to have a working Fox Shape ability, he/she needs to pay for the total cost of it, let's say, by giving up that bonus feat.
Otherwise, rocks fall, special snowflake dies. Roll up a new PC.
|
The Fox Shape feat does not mention a Shapechange ability, the requirement of a Shapechange ability, or any other ability, limb, or body shape,that is required for the feat to function.
______
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.
____A human has no other forms, and cannot change from kitsune to anything.
A taking a feat does not give you the ability to use it.
It is amazing to me that some choose to ignore the "fluff" of a particular ability and act like is wasn't there.
Do you have other forms? No. Then whether or not you have this feat, you can't change into a third/another.
If you take Tail Slap, do you have a Tail? No. Then you can't use a tail slap even if you have a feat.
There are some things you can do, like give scales to skin, claws to hands and so on, but if you don't have the "thing" then you can't use it.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously hate this pedantic b~$#*&##.
There is no rules-backed reason not to allow this. It isn't unbalanced. It doesn't create problems in the game. It doesn't break any rules. If a GM wants to disallow it for thematic or style reasons, fine. Lets not pretend the mechanics don't support the idea though. That's nonsense.
Your Human would have Kitsune ancestry. Part of that ancestry is the potential ability to shape shift into a fox, just like a normal Kitsune.
You have the heritage, you are allowed to take the feat, the feat works as listed.
Anyone who says otherwise is being arbitrarily limiting.
I think the problem here is more racial heritage more than anything.
Should feats written exclusively for one race be worded in a complicated manner so they can't be used by other races that found a loophole? No, because again, it is overcomplicating the rules of the feat for a tiny side case. So the rules of contruction for that feat are reasonable enough. The very concept of race specific feats was supposed to be enough of a barrier that we would not have to ask these questions.
The problem is that there is that loophole to begin with. What good does racial heritage actually do? What benefit does it acutally add other than maybe grabbing a racial feat or two? For the most part, it just seems like a complicated thing that causes arguments like this.
A simple special line "Racial Heritage does not qualify you for this feat" works. It's not hard and doesn't require complicated wording. It's JUST as complicated as Keen:"This benefit doesn't stack with any other effects that expand the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)."
So if they want to make racial feats that humans can't steal, they have a simple way to do so.
I lean a little towards 'Bah, Racial Heritage' school on this one. As written? Technically legit but I wouldn't try pulling this off against my GM, and GM > technically legit. As a theme? I really think it'd just be cooler to be an actual kitsune.
I've actually thought of Racial Heritage to get my human a scent ability by her claiming to be half half-orc, or half orc (but not half-orc), but ... it seems more like a cop-out to do that, in a way. And it's not like humans need MORE benefits, is it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously hate this pedantic b@&~+~!@.
The pedantic b@&~+~!@ is saying that it technically doesn't have a prerequisite of the kitsunes change shape ability, which it never the less references nearly once a sentence.
Let's make this even more ridiculous.
Magical TailYou grow an extra tail that represents your growing magical powers.
Prerequisite: Kitsune.
Benefit: You gain a new spell-like ability, each usable twice per day, from the following list, in order: disguise self, charm person, misdirection, invisibility, suggestion, displacement, confusion, dominate person. For example, the first time you select this feat, you gain disguise self 2/day; the second time you select this feat, you gain charm person 2/day. Your caster level for these spells is equal to your Hit Dice. The DCs for these abilities are Charisma-based.
Special: You may select this feat up to eight times. Each time you take it, you gain an additional ability as described above.
'Tarmada, I know you mentioned some odd ancestry, but ... um ... you may want to have your gowns adjusted ... '
I might allow this for the same reasoning as id allow the fox form. If a human has the blood of a kitsune, it might make sense that one especially in tune with his blood might get to take advantage of the power it grants.
Growing a tail is just hilarious, though.
Looks legal, Qaianna, and even less unbalanced than Fox Shape. Normally, a human would not have a tail, true, but if their great-grandparent was a kitsune, why couldn't they grow one because magic? I see nothing ridiculous about it and agree with those above arguing that these feats are technically allowed by RAW. I also agree with those who note that it is interesting and not too unbalancing. It's a wrinkle the DM may need to adjust for, but it's way better than, for example, everyone in the magical academy mysteriously having grown up with fey who live in Minata with the wayang.
Racial Heritage is an interesting feat for reasons of story as well as gameplay, and I wouldn't be so quick to neuter it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The wording of the feat says that changing from Kitsune to Fox form is a standard action.
You are human, not Kitsune, so although you are allowed to take the feat, you may not benefit from it.
Additionally, your bite is REDUCED to... so since you don't START with a bite attack, that line is irrelevant also.
It looks to me like all this would do for a human is give them a +10 disguise roll to look like a fox.
Strict, even harsh, reading of the rules, but I don't believe a third level human fighter should have unlimited shapechanging in addition to a free bite attack for the cost of one feat.
The feat is explicitly clear: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed each time you assume this form.
For someone who complains as much as you do about martials not being able to get nice things, why are you trying to take a nice thing away from martials?
The pedantic b@&~+~!@ is saying that it technically doesn't have a prerequisite of the kitsunes change shape ability, which it never the less references nearly once a sentence.I seriously hate this pedantic b@&~+~!@.
Except that it literally doesn't mention it even once. The closest it gets is that it reduces bite damage but it is certainly not explicit.
A simple special line "Racial Heritage does not qualify you for this feat" works. It's not hard and doesn't require complicated wording. It's JUST as complicated as Keen:"This benefit doesn't stack with any other effects that expand the threat range of a weapon (such as the keen edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)."
So if they want to make racial feats that humans can't steal, they have a simple way to do so.
This is what they did with Feral Combat Training and Pummeling Style, and I really wish they wouldn't. I think that sort of back and forth of "this ability lets you bypass restrictions" "well, this ability creates restrictions that can never be bypassed" just cheapens the idea of restriction-removing abilities as a whole.
If they're not comfortable having an ability that can bypass race/weapon/whatever restrictions, they shouldn't make that ability. If they do, then they should be prepared for the consequences.And no ability that is easily obtained by a kitsune is going to break the game when obtained by a human, unless it was game-breaking in the first place.
I'd rather they didn't either. I was just making a point that feats don't have to be written with complicated and convoluted wording to avoid unintended interactions. It's actually very simple/easy and has already be done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that it literally doesn't mention it even once. The closest it gets is that it reduces bite damage but it is certainly not explicit.The pedantic b@&~+~!@ is saying that it technically doesn't have a prerequisite of the kitsunes change shape ability, which it never the less references nearly once a sentence.I seriously hate this pedantic b@&~+~!@.
This. Change Shape is not listed in the prerequisites, and it is not once mentioned in the text of the Fox Shape feat. It does list "Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action", but as Racial Heritage allows you to qualify as a Kitsune for the effects of feats, there's no real argument there either.
You can argue that you don't want to allow it for thematic or flavorful reasons, but there's nothing there to suggest that applying the feat as a Human with Racial Heritage(Kitsune) is impossible.
Except that it literally doesn't mention it even once. The closest it gets is that it reduces bite damage but it is certainly not explicit.
Ok, saying "its not explicit" is the EXACT pedantticism I'm pointing out.
Here are a few other mentions.
You can change into a fox in addition to your other forms.
Pre requisite:kitsune <----
Benefit: You can take the form of a fox whose appearance is static and cannot be changed
Change Shape (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.
each time you assume this form. Your bite attack’s damage is reduced to 1d3 points of damage on a hit
Changing from kitsune to fox shape is a standard action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't Mythic Racial Heritage cover acquisition of the kitsune's change shape racial ability?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask your DM.
For a shared play environment at least half the people are saying no, so don't build a character around it.
Or just play a kitsune and avoid the problem.
A DM can surely houserule it out, but other than a possible issue with one's tastes, no problem exists.
House rule has a definition other than disagreeing with you.
There is additional roleplay advantage. People see a fox and theyre far more likely to think it was george the kitsune than they are to think it was george the human.
Okay.
So, you have basically said, you need a Bite, and the ability to take an alternate form, for it to work.
This is the stance, yes?
No.
The feat alters your change shape ability. You cannot alter an ability you do not have. This is the same thing you didn't accept the last time this came up.
There is additional roleplay advantage. People see a fox and theyre far more likely to think it was george the kitsune than they are to think it was george the human.
Kitsune have a human suit if they want to do that...
It would be a problem at my table. It's clearly selective reading that allows this. It's not intended and it's painfully clear.
Overpowered? No.
Thematic? No. It gives away the entire reason to play a kitsune that have the shapechanger subtype,whereas a human doesn't even if they take the feats.
Couldnt that then be said for anything that racial heritage gives a human?
|
So, this feats requires an ability, that it doesn't say it requires, and it must a certain version of this ability, even though it doesn't sat that either.
Also, it alters an ability, it doesn't say it alters.
Hmm, that seems to suggest you have it alter more than it says it does, even for a Kitsune.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Naw.
There is no balance difference between a Kitsune, or a Human, having this feat.
You might try to string a series of words together, to be portrayed as some contrived, but somehow valid, reason the balance is tipped one way, but it's just plugging one's ears and screaming.
It is a fantastically absurd thing to pitch a fit about.
I agree crimeo, but it's also clearly not intended when you get the benefits of being a shapechanger without the liabilities thus making it superior to the kitsune version.
Change Shape, Greater (6 RP): Prerequisite: Aberration, dragon, fey, humanoid, or monstrous humanoid type. Note shapechanger isn't a requirement. I don't know of anything in pathfinder that requires it in fact.
It is a fantastically absurd thing to pitch a fit about.No one is pitching a fit.
I've had enough of your hyperbolic insults and insinuations.
Good day.
You just want to keep all the amazing "benefits of being a shapechanger" to yourself! :P
Crimeo: Grey_Mage seemed to think being able to shapechange or fox shape required the subtype and was just pointing out it wasn't the case.
|
|
Shrug. Do your thing. Under RAW, I agree it works.
It shouldnt and will be clarified at a point in time in the future, but exploit it while you can.
Its a shame as this thread has given me an idea of awarding this to a character in a homebrew. Basically, he contracts lycanthropy, but since he already had shapeshifter blood(kitsune) in his background he attains a foxlike version.
But the world is much better with drizzt clones and full of humans whose parents had a thing for furry partiers.
Seriously, its a fine idea, but its exploitative when mass produced as it is superior to it's kitsune counterpart.
|
|
Humans get extra skill points, choice of stat increases, and lack of shapeshifter subtype vulnerability.
It would grant 4 str overall since there would be no kitsune penalty to strength.
Since damage output seems to be the main complaint of using tiny forms this is a substantial advatage considering you get 1.5 on a main natural attack.
Humans get extra skill points, choice of stat increases, and lack of shapeshifter subtype vulnerability.
It would grant 4 str overall since there would be no kitsune penalty to strength.
Since damage output seems to be the main complaint of using tiny forms this is a substantial advatage considering you get 1.5 on a main natural attack.
3 levels of unchained rogue = dex 1.5 damage bite. How it the kitsune losing out in dex? They also keep the natural attack in normal size and have lowlight. And a +2 cha.
So how is the human better? and what's the subtype vulnerability you're talking about? Favored Target is the only one off the top of my head and are shapechangers really a top pick most times?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vulnerability?
Also, you realize you are trying to support a Tiny sized strength issue, as if that were an actual advantage.
If you were somehow going to use this as an attack form, you would go Dex.
Wait, Kitsune get a bonus to Dex?
In the end, it's happening just as I said.
A string of words, posing as a contrived, but somehow valid, argument for balance.