If you pick feats in a vacuum, based on how impactful you expect them to be in the mean average of all sessions across all tables, sure.
But you probably shouldn’t pick feats that way. They should either be an expression of your character concept, or a reaction to the campaign you’re currently playing.
But you also should design feats so as not to punish players for trying to express their character concept a different way. Why not just make one feat to have a prehensile tail?
For a PC? Probably not, though it is an ancestory feat and those tend to be fairly weak. For an NPC social rogue sent to annoy the players? Absolutely!
Oh that’s good, because I was gonna say, tieflings don’t have prehensile tails in the Realms.
I didn’t realize they did in Pathfinder. Neat.
Looks like the followup ancestry feat is more applicable to this image. I do like the idea of it costing an ancestry feat to get though. Implies it’s a feature some nephilim have, but not the majority.
But is that really worth two feats? It seems like such a niche use case.
If you pick feats in a vacuum, based on how impactful you expect them to be in the mean average of all sessions across all tables, sure.
But you probably shouldn’t pick feats that way. They should either be an expression of your character concept, or a reaction to the campaign you’re currently playing.
But you also should design feats so as not to punish players for trying to express their character concept a different way. Why not just make one feat to have a prehensile tail?
For a PC? Probably not, though it is an ancestory feat and those tend to be fairly weak. For an NPC social rogue sent to annoy the players? Absolutely!