Crimeo |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Humans get extra skill points, choice of stat increases, and lack of shapeshifter subtype vulnerability.
Kitsunes get low light vision, racial magic dancing lights, keen senses, and lack of human subtype vulnerability (which is MUCH more than shapechanger, since 50x more people will choose human favored enemy than shapechanger).
It would grant 4 str overall since there would be no kitsune penalty to strength.
And if your human put his points into STR, then this would also mean the human is at -2DEX and -2CHA compared to being a kitsune. Hmm... it's almost like it balances out (!)
What's your point?
James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
Lord Twitchiopolis |
I think it is RAW illegal, sufficiently so that I'd disallow it at PFS tables I run.
RAW, it is legal, but PFS actually SPECIFICALLY bars Racial Heritage to race feats in Advanced Race Guide. However, you CAN, in PFS, use Racial Heritage to gain access to race based prerequisite feats from Ultimate Combat.
In fact, in PFS you CAN take Racial Heritage(Kitsune), you just can't get kitsune specific feats (since specific rulings regarding the source books of those feats). I had this conversation with Brock before.James Risner Owner - D20 Hobbies |
The pedantic 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.
+1
I'm starting to want to come here less and less.
The more threads like this I see, the more I get frustrated and worry we are slipping into the quagmire of the last few years before 4e D&D came out. The world of absurd pedantic crap and I'd like to not see pathfinder threads go that way, but I don't know if there is anything little old me can do to stop it.
Crimeo |
Incidentally, is anyone arguing that the Racial Heritage feat would not allow you to take the Magical Tail feat? Because I think this might actually be the more interesting option. Because tails. XD
I think it is pretty much exactly equivalent. Just like fox shape, there is one random tangential word that vaguely implies something about kitsune anatomy ("extra" tail), but otherwise no hard mechanical problem. So to whatever extent you care about vague flavortext implications, you're going to care about them for both feats, or not care about them for either feat.
The world of absurd pedantic crap
When both sides are yelling "pedantry" at the same time at each other, it's probably not pedantic on either side. Sort of like if 50% of people say "X is overpowered" and 50% say "X is underpowered" then it's probably perfectly balanced.
Lord Twitchiopolis |
I'd also like to note, as per Brock's ruling (though honestly, it's been some time since I got this and he may have changed it since), you CAN take Racial Heritage for Boon races and races out of core in PFS.
Access to specific feats in PFS is restricted by the source material, and individual rulings vary from book to book.
In PFS, a character CAN use Racial Heritage to qualify for feats from Ultimate Combat and the Advance Player's Guide.
In PFS, a character CANNOT use Racial Heritage to qualify for feats from the Advanced Race Guide.
Outside of organized play, consult your DM. There is not right or wrong answer.
Edit- I believe his response was something along the line of "Your player wants Racial Heritage(Kitsune)? Sure. I mean, it won't really net him anything and it's one more thing Favored Enemy procs on, but more power to him."
blackbloodtroll |
Oh, the blood of a magical race flows through me, and now, I manifest some of those traits.
Hmm, sounds, familiar. Like, a trope, or something.
We have real world creatures that go through incredible metamorphosis, and some are even triggered by things like environment, or gender ratio.
When the real world gives us new limbs, wings, or reproductive organs, how can we not imagine the fantasy world, creating more fantastical versions, and alternates?
LazarX |
I understand that it seems like it might be unintended, but it also seems like something that might make for an interesting character.
I'm weird that way, but I don't find twisting of literal text, "interesting".
Diego Rossi |
Johnny_Devo wrote:As for me, i rather like the idea of it working, as it lets a human have something more interesting. They always seem a bit bland to me.They're completely unrealistic. Why hasn't a species that isn't night blind just attacked in the dark and slaughtered them all?
Because they use fire. And you can kill something attacking you even if you don't see well.
Diego Rossi |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I seriously hate this pedantic b*+*+!@$.
There is no rules-backed reason not to allow this. It isn't unbalanced. It doesn't create problems in the game. It doesn't break any rules. If a GM wants to disallow it for thematic or style reasons, fine. Lets not pretend the mechanics don't support the idea though. That's nonsense.
Your Human would have Kitsune ancestry. Part of that ancestry is the potential ability to shape shift into a fox, just like a normal Kitsune.
You have the heritage, you are allowed to take the feat, the feat works as listed.
Anyone who says otherwise is being arbitrarily limiting.
Considering that purchasing the feat and saying that it work is based on "pedantic b*+*+!@$" I suppose you hate the OP too.
GM Bold Strider |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We do all realize that Racial Heritage means you are descendant from the chosen race, right?
EDIT: Fixed.
Don't you know? Most people think any interesting usage of Racial Heritage is OMGWTFOP. Taking that feat means you are a munchkin and can't possibly have a roleplay reason for doing so. The goal of that feat is to limit you to wasting your first level feat. Taking another feat from that race is off-limits!
Lord Twitchiopolis |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Crimeo wrote:And the skill point bonus, and putting a +2 where you want instead of receiving +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Strength.Quote:its exploitative when mass produced as it is superior to it's kitsune counterpart.I don't even agree with this. Exploit implies (among other things) gaining some advantage. But a human's main attraction is bonus feat. A kitsune's main attraction is shapechanging stuff. You're giving up one (by burning that feat on heritage) to get the other, that's neutral at best.
And more realistically, a self-nerf, since the actual much better shape ability was Realistic Likeness, not fox shape. You're giving up your A-string human perk for a B-string kitsune one.
but for the trade-off of being the most common favored enemy and not being able to shift out of Baleful Polymorph at a whim (seriously it's in there).
Seriously, why are we even arguing about it at this point? If he wants to do it in a home game, that's up to his DM. If he wants to do it in PFS, it's explicitly disallowed by rules.
kyrt-ryder |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just gonna be honest here guys...
I'm getting a little sick of how every time something interesting pops up in the rules that is remotely interesting a horde of naysayers crop up and cry out 'EXPLOIT EXPLOIT READ ALL ABOUT IT, BRAND NEW EXPLOIT AND THE MUNCHKINS REJOICE.'
Seriously, this is a roleplaying game. We're all in this to pretend we're something we're not with abilities we don't have. Can't we all just have some fun?
Byakko |
kyrt-ryder, I think it's less about being creative and coming up with fun things, and more about allowing a human to do something somewhat iconic to the kitsune, and potentially doing it better than them. Imho, when an ability allows you to imitate something which should be exclusive to another race or class, there should be a more impactful and noticeable opportunity cost involved.
Crimeo |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True that. I kiiiind of get "you're robbing kitsune's schtick" But at the same time... kitsune isn't like, a person, who is going to take offense if we steal their schtick and go cry himself to sleep or something. Kitsune is an unfeeling abstract gaming concept. Why would it be worth "defending" at all?
Hell, if every single player race in the entire game were removed and re-flavored as mutageniic variants of humans, it wouldn't really significantly impact gameplay, other than making rangers more powerful.
RJGrady |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The feat was written for kitsune. Banning it based on the fact does not make sense. Racial Heritage appears in the APG, along with this feat:
Stone Singer
Your songs are in accordance with the ways and lands of your people.Prerequisites: Cha 13, bardic performance class feature, dwarf.
Benefit: When you use bardic performance with audible components underground, the range or area of your chosen performance is doubled, and you can affect deaf creatures if they possess tremorsense and are in your new range. In addition, the DC for saving throws against your bardic performance is increased by +2 for creatures of the earth subtype, regardless of where the performance occurs.
Should we ban that, too, since your songs are NOT in accordance with the ways and lands of your people?
Is Breadth of Knowledge banned, since you are not young for your kind, and humans are very old at 100+ years?
What about Lucky Halfling, since you are not a halfling?
Generally speaking, I think Racial Heritage should be allowed for anything that doesn't immediately break when you try to apply it. As it happens, Fox Shape doesn't key off any other kitsune ability, so it works just as well, as written, for a human as it does for a kitsune. Even the reference to bite damage works seamlessly, as the ability makes reference to a specific beast form spell.
Crimeo |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, really, what is expected function of this feat?
It's an evil power gamer detection device.
In actuality, in fact, in game, when your character casts "detect evil," what he is actually doing is tempting the NPCs with the feat "racial heritage," and if they try to take said feat, it means the test is positive.
Snowblind |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, using to Racial Heritage, to do, anything, is bad form.
I mean, really, what is expected function of this feat?
It's a munchkin detection device.
If you want to count as another race without actually being that race, it's obvious that all you want to do is stitch together broken crap from 50 different splat books without regards for role-play or human decency and the feat is just a tool you are using to break the game and have BADWRONGFUN at the expense of the rest of the table. Naturally, it's the right and responsibility of the GM to stomp on the min-maxed monster of a character concept until the munchkin learns to stop enjoying hack-n-slash rollplaying and turns into a wonderful story orientated player who would rather play magical tea-time all night than so much as touch the dice.
Quite simple, really.
*I might be taking the piss here a little*
EDIT: Wait, seriously, my "detection" device idea was ninja'd by another poster? I did not expect that. I call power-forum-posting shenanigans.
Snowblind |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quote:EDIT: Wait, seriously, my "detection" device idea was ninja'd by another poster? I did not expect that. I call power-forum-posting shenanigans.I did it by using my 1/8th racial dodo heritage to give myself a +4 to forum posting initiative.
You filthy roll-forum-goer.
Seriously, though, the legality of the option sits somewhere between "ambiguous" and "it's fine", and it's actually a pretty weak mechanical compared to just running a Kitsune for a number of reasons. Thematically, it's completely OK so long as you don't mind racial heritage allowing significant physical changes. After all, what's wrong with a human whose great grandmother was a secret fox person learning how to transform into a fox or even figuring out how to channel the magical powers in their blood, which manifests as growing a fox tail. It's as reasonable as a dragon blooded person growing wings and claws or a serpent blooded person sprouting fangs at will.
Doomed Hero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quote:I mean, really, what is expected function of this feat?It's an evil power gamer detection device.
In actuality, in fact, in game, when your character casts "detect evil," what he is actually doing is tempting the NPCs with the feat "racial heritage," and if they try to take said feat, it means the test is positive.
The only time I've ever used this feat was to take Racial Heritage Changeling, so I could make a Dreamweaver witch who was male.
Suuuuuuuper munchkin, right here.
alexd1976 |
I don't get this "No. This is the only race that gets this, even if the rules say otherwise".
I mean, to me, it's nearly on level of saying having a beard, swinging warhammers, and loving beer, is some kind of Dwarf only thing.
At the very least, a male thing...
Unless female dwarves have beards...
Grrr De'Bonaire |
I understand that it seems like it might be unintended, but it also seems like something that might make for an interesting character. Plus, it's a 2 feat cost for something that has little to no combat application.
I beg to differ...
Looks down. Sits on AlexD's head. Extends claws
alexd1976 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My initial knee-jerk reaction was NONONO to this, as anything granting shapechanging ability (in my experience) can be abused...
However, after some reflection, It's not that bad.
I mean, you can't even have this before level 3, it costs two feats...
Turning into a cute little fox sounds very much NOT like a munchkin move.
Sure, you can fit in... IN A FOREST. It's not like it allows you to turn into an urban animal like dog or cat, so spying is right out (I mean seriously, if you saw a dog walk by, you would wonder where the owner was, if you saw a FOX walk by, you would probably call animal control or whatever)...
There is obviously enough ambiguity in the wording of this to cause some debate, so I suggest you all take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourselves...
Does this actually break the game?
The answer from most people will probably be... No.
So who cares if someone wants to be a furry. They deserve a chance too.
Fuzzy little weirdos. :)
Gisher |
blackbloodtroll wrote:I don't get this "No. This is the only race that gets this, even if the rules say otherwise".
I mean, to me, it's nearly on level of saying having a beard, swinging warhammers, and loving beer, is some kind of Dwarf only thing.
At the very least, a male thing...
Unless female dwarves have beards...
They might if like to go to stonings.
Gisher |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My initial knee-jerk reaction was NONONO to this, as anything granting shapechanging ability (in my experience) can be abused...
However, after some reflection, It's not that bad.
I mean, you can't even have this before level 3, it costs two feats...
Turning into a cute little fox sounds very much NOT like a munchkin move.
Sure, you can fit in... IN A FOREST. It's not like it allows you to turn into an urban animal like dog or cat, so spying is right out (I mean seriously, if you saw a dog walk by, you would wonder where the owner was, if you saw a FOX walk by, you would probably call animal control or whatever)...
There is obviously enough ambiguity in the wording of this to cause some debate, so I suggest you all take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourselves...
Does this actually break the game?
The answer from most people will probably be... No.
So who cares if someone wants to be a furry. They deserve a chance too.
Fuzzy little weirdos. :)
What possible harm could come from letting someone shape change into a little animal?
;)
Crimeo |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if you saw a FOX walk by, you would probably call animal control or whatever
...in the 16th century or whatever?
Anyway, the generic power level in gameplay doesn't really matter here, because the question being asked is not "is it too powerful for anybody to use at all?" It's about racial qualification.
alexd1976 |
Johnny_Devo wrote:I understand that it seems like it might be unintended, but it also seems like something that might make for an interesting character. Plus, it's a 2 feat cost for something that has little to no combat application.
I beg to differ...
Looks down. Sits on AlexD's head. Extends claws
*looks up stats on Fox, no claws*
You don't scare me little fuzzy thing.
alexd1976 |
Quote:if you saw a FOX walk by, you would probably call animal control or whatever...in the 16th century or whatever?
Anyway, the generic power level in gameplay doesn't really matter here, because the question being asked is not "is it too powerful for anybody to use at all?" It's about racial qualification.
I said whatever... ;)
Also, YOU don't live in the 16th century. My point remains valid, in any 'normal' setting, an unattended wild animal will be shooed away/attacked.
At least in my games...
*shrugs*
This seems semi-legit, and not broken, so I would allow it.
alexd1976 |
alexd1976 wrote:My initial knee-jerk reaction was NONONO to this, as anything granting shapechanging ability (in my experience) can be abused...
However, after some reflection, It's not that bad.
I mean, you can't even have this before level 3, it costs two feats...
Turning into a cute little fox sounds very much NOT like a munchkin move.
Sure, you can fit in... IN A FOREST. It's not like it allows you to turn into an urban animal like dog or cat, so spying is right out (I mean seriously, if you saw a dog walk by, you would wonder where the owner was, if you saw a FOX walk by, you would probably call animal control or whatever)...
There is obviously enough ambiguity in the wording of this to cause some debate, so I suggest you all take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourselves...
Does this actually break the game?
The answer from most people will probably be... No.
So who cares if someone wants to be a furry. They deserve a chance too.
Fuzzy little weirdos. :)
What possible harm could come from letting someone shape change into a little animal?
;)
I thought this entire build was invalidated by some piece of errata... *shrugs* I dunno. If someone wants to make the build you linked, using the fox approach isn't ideal. They would just copy the build you linked. So if that build is legal, this fox is LESS deadly than that legal build.
Right?
So you have either a)pointed out a much deadlier option that is legal or b)linked something that isn't legal, and therefor irrelevant.
Either one is fine with me.
Gisher |
Gisher wrote:alexd1976 wrote:My initial knee-jerk reaction was NONONO to this, as anything granting shapechanging ability (in my experience) can be abused...
However, after some reflection, It's not that bad.
I mean, you can't even have this before level 3, it costs two feats...
Turning into a cute little fox sounds very much NOT like a munchkin move.
Sure, you can fit in... IN A FOREST. It's not like it allows you to turn into an urban animal like dog or cat, so spying is right out (I mean seriously, if you saw a dog walk by, you would wonder where the owner was, if you saw a FOX walk by, you would probably call animal control or whatever)...
There is obviously enough ambiguity in the wording of this to cause some debate, so I suggest you all take a deep breath, take a step back and ask yourselves...
Does this actually break the game?
The answer from most people will probably be... No.
So who cares if someone wants to be a furry. They deserve a chance too.
Fuzzy little weirdos. :)
What possible harm could come from letting someone shape change into a little animal?
;)
I thought this entire build was invalidated by some piece of errata... *shrugs* I dunno. If someone wants to make the build you linked, using the fox approach isn't ideal. They would just copy the build you linked. So if that build is legal, this fox is LESS deadly than that legal build.
Right?
So you have either a)pointed out a much deadlier option that is legal or b)linked something that isn't legal, and therefor irrelevant.
Either one is fine with me.
I have no idea whether that build works. I just find the whole concept funny. I was just being silly, and I guess the "wink" didn't convey that intent.