|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
 Recent Posts
Thanks. I'm sure the tag will show up sooner or later. In the mean time I get to keep my alias which I am quite fond of so I'm not complaining.
Awesome! What else did you do, if you don't mind me asking?Yeah, the "Dimensional *" feats were one of my contributions. They were changed a bit in development but not a lot from what I can see.Did you write that? I'm always confused when people say they're a bit biased :)Monks get all sorts of cool Style feats, as well as Dimensional Agility, which lets them eventually use Abundant Step while full-attacking. At the cost of 3 feats, but hey! It's awesome.You just made my day. Hmm, mostly a fistful of feats and spells. A bunch of the inquisitor feats, some of the Dispel feats, the "Nightmare *" feats, some of the finishing feats. I honestly have to dig through my submission to find them all. The Dimensional ones were one of my favorites. I'm hoping they work out. Spells... Resinous skin, Tar Pit, Touch Injection, Animal Aspects, Judgment Light, and a bunch more but those are more or less the ones that stand out the most. And thanks.
Did you write that? I'm always confused when people say they're a bit biased :)Monks get all sorts of cool Style feats, as well as Dimensional Agility, which lets them eventually use Abundant Step while full-attacking. At the cost of 3 feats, but hey! It's awesome.You just made my day. Yeah, the "Dimensional *" feats were one of my contributions. They were changed a bit in development but not a lot from what I can see.
Monks get all sorts of cool Style feats, as well as Dimensional Agility, which lets them eventually use Abundant Step while full-attacking. At the cost of 3 feats, but hey! It's awesome. You just made my day.
Ok..another bit..Do Monks get love? HEck do martial Chars get love..feat-wise? Monks get more love than a Shang Hai prostitute when a navy ship is at dock.
Actually, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of characters who use exotic weapons don't use any feats on them. Instead they access them via class features or racial features. It's a nice way of making exotic weapons less common and make each race/ class have their own unique flavor. So in general, exotics should be better than martial weapons but don't need to be 'worth' spending a feat. Dwarven Waraxe
Exotic weapons make choices unique by limiting access to their signature weapons. Some exotics should get require a feat, Aldori Dueling sword for example is well worth a feat and you shouldn't be able to cheat and get easy access to it.
And yet I have heard stories about resmithing a katana into a new one. Reforging it, and making a new masterpiece, while still considering it the same weapon. Eh... If you mend a sword that has been shattered in two is it the same sword or a repair of an existing one? I would argue that you can't really 'repair' a shattered sword and it essentially has to be reforged yet this trope is a fairly commonly used fantasy trope. Anyhow, I realize you aren't arguing the point, just wanted to point out it isn't unheard of in the genre. I would suggest that the reason there are no rules for reforging something as masterwork is largely because other than this oddball case there has never been a need for it in normal play. Now we have a spell and Sean's suggestion that it's a valid use of the craft skill which covers it pretty well.
Oh, it can happen. For example accidentally ending in an invisible enemies space or failing to tumble through an enemies space. I guess that is the real possible 'exploit', if a character tries to tumble through an enemies space it is possible the nearest legal space is behind the enemy. Personally, I like James Jacob's take on that, you have the guy moving fall prone in his allies space in that situation.
I like drow poison a lot. The DC is low but it's dirt cheap (25gp crafted). I look at it this way, even if the creature has ridiculous fort you have a bare minimum 1 in 20 chance of taking them out of the fight on any given shot you hit with. Concentrate poison unfortunately only lasts an hour but multiple hits in a single round increases the DC with each hit so even a relatively low DC poison can be formidable if you hit a creature 3 times in a round. As for poison pricing, it's largely based on the ability it damages. CON poisons are the most valuable because they attack an ability and hit points both. CON poisons are also the only poisons that become more and more difficult to resist as you take damage. Strength poisons are nice against low strength creatures. If you hit a 10 strength wizard with 3 doses of purple worm poison (DC 24 save/ 1d3 str damage/ 700gp) he is unlikely to recover and will drop after 2-3 rounds. One more cheap oddity... Giant Wasps poison is a fairly high DC, dexterity poison. If you ever fight a huge dragon or other very tough but clumsy creature, you have a solid chance of depleting his dexterity with this before you deplete his hit points.
Eh... the way I see it exotic weapon proficiency is there more to limit the availability of weapons than to set them up as being significantly more powerful than baseline weapons. Dwarven war axe is only slightly nicer than baseline weapons so the only ones who take it are dwarves. Elven curved blade is similar. These characters get to stand out a bit and do something unique and maybe a tiny bit better than their martial counterparts. Is it worth a feat for these things? Probably not, but it makes characters stand out a bit in the crowd. It gives monks some weapons fighters don't have, it makes elves a little elfier, and dwarves a little dwarfier. This makes some of the exotic weapons like the bastard sword a little less appealing but there is plenty of room for GMs to play here. I think a nice work-around would be some traits that granted access to specific exotic weapons that aren't in these categories. For a silly example: Ham Fisted: Your hands are particularly large and strong, you can treat the bastard sword as a martial weapon. Weapon Tinkerer: You can treat repeating crossbows and hand crossbows as martial weapons. Someone who is not a Full BAB character could nab one of these and heirloom weapon to nab one of these exotics at first level.
I could see the end of a jump ending in a square where they are not allowed to stop, thus forcing them to move to the next closest legal square. If the targeted landing square is right against the side of a cliff, with stuff on either side of it, then the next square is one farther then your jump made originally, thus gaining 1 square distance. Ah, but landing in empty air is legal space, it's just uncomfortable. You only get the choice if there's a legal position that's closer, in this case they are equidistant.
Let me repeat: Wizards are trained to use weapons properly, they can wield (and at first level mind you) a Quarterstaff, Dagger, Club, and Crossbow just as well as a Magus can absent all other class features. If you limit it to specific weapons, so are commoners. Experts can kick their asses though. I guess all that time in the smithy wearing leather helps out.
Do you have to make a Bull Rush against them spending a Standard Action? Can you just stop and not make the move and still make a Full-attack action? In order to 'exploit' it you would have to deliberately end movement in an illegal space which is by definition not covered by that rule. /nit
PS:What I don't like are the cries of broken. If you are the only one really complaining about something......... Now if you want to say it is broken for you game that is fine, but remember other GM's don't have an issue with it. [/soap box] First, There is no broken. Broken is such an over-used term in these forums it's just silly. Very few changes to the game actually break things so bad they don't work, even the biggest offender around, antagonize, doesn't truly break things entirely. Instead, there are easy choices and hard choices, the easy choices are the ones where one option is so much better than others that a corner of the game turns into a mono-culture. An easy example of easy choices in the game is the choice for ranged weapons, the composite longbow is a no-brainer for anyone who has access to it. The hard choices are the ones where you really have to scratch your head to figure out which is best and in the end there is no clear consensus which leaves the choice largely one of role-play preference. An example of this is perhaps color spray versus sleep. You can argue that one is more powerful than the other but ultimately it boils down to player preference (and sometimes the table/ campaign). I like hard choices because it makes for a more diverse game and players make choices based on role playing decisions more often. As far as I'm concerned all choices in the game should be at least a little challenging. So when I think about game balance I think about it in those terms.
I thought I had seen the limit of mischaracterizations possible in one sentence. Congrats you reset the bar. Either you didn't understand the several points I made, or you intentionally twisted them. Either way, perhaps you should consider treating people who disagree with you with a tad more respect.Is this about Heirloom, or something else that I missed? He wasn't replying to you, or even referring to your reply, or even as far as I can tell referring to your point of view at all.
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept). So the way I see it you have two groups. Home players: Most Home GMs are likely going to grandfather the original version in for existing characters or will work with the player to get a reasonable rebuild. Heck, some will keep the current version. PFS players: Until Mark comes out with the rebuild stuff for this it's in a holding pattern and until that resolution is released it's kind of hard to say how disruptive it really is going to be.
*shrug* you've pretty much painted every single trait as being better than this and I just have to disagree. As for campaign traits... in Carrion crown I'd have jumped on this trait, as it was I wound up taking one of those +1 caster level traits that ultimately gives me a trivial bonus. Most of the rest of the group took the trait that gave +2 initiative. I'd have loved for my sorcerer(ess) to have a glaive she could use. I'm not sure where these more powerful role-playing traits are in the campaign traits. I haven't seen a ton of these in Carrion Crown, Serpents Skull. There were some nice ones in Runelords but that was before they were really traits.
Essentially every single character in the game can benefit from the trait in one way or another which is far more than most traits.If you say so. Personally, I wouldn't consider it for most of my characters as written because the benefit isn't worth the cost. The cost may not be mechanical, but it is still a very real cost. The 'cost' is what you forego to take the trait. So you don't get reactionary, or +4 to one skill (assuming it's not a class skill), or +1 to the caster level of a single spell... How about this, give me a list of traits you think are more powerful than this one. I'd like to see at least 6-8 alternates that are obviously better. I'll even give you a head start:
If you aren't in PFS I wouldn't worry about what happened to Heirloom weapon. If you are in PFS, you can read about it here. Or just go to the Adventurers Armory page and download the errata.
An Alchemist can add spells to his Formula Book from Scrolls and Wizard spell books as long as the spell is on his list. A wizard cannot add spells to his spellbook from an Alchemist Formula book. I just wanted to highlight something Dragnmoon said because for some reason a fair number of people get this crossed up. Alchemists can only add formula for extracts which are on the alchemist extract list in the APG or specifically flagged as alchemist extracts. Not suggesting you thought otherwise, it's just a common misconception.
I see tons of people using half orc or elf to get martial weapons so there is plenty of use for the other 66%. Read through the forums, half orcs falchion/ great axe is one of the biggest reasons they are loved. Elves long bow access is coveted. Essentially every single character in the game can benefit from the trait in one way or another which is far more than most traits.
I wouldn't call the current version average. I would call it weak and well below average. There no mechanical advantage except for some corner cases, the type of weapon allowed is already within reach of 75% of the classes, and you are still giving yourself a potential Achilles' Heel and the DM plenty of plothooks to make his life easier, and now you have to figure out how to gain access to a spell that may not even be allowed because it comes from a different source. How much of a problem those drawbacks are will vary from game to game, class to class and build to build, but the mechanical benefits are pretty well set, and even the mildest penalties are enough to make most players cringe and stay away from it most of the time.Why are people upset over a simple +1 to hit from MW at first level?Why are you so upset about one average power trait versus the dozens of other average power traits? Why aren't you upset that the other dozens of traits are average power? Correction, the type of weapon allowed is already within reach of 33% of classes. Additionally the trait is useful if you want to specialise in combat maneuvers. If you subtract the classes that won't use weapons or use their own (Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch) that still leaves more than 60% of characters able to benefit from the trait. Considering how many people I know who take half orc or elf due to the free martial weapon proficiencies I think there is still a pretty fair demand for access to martial weapons for non-martial characters. A +2 bonus on combat maneuvers is likewise pretty solid for a trip built character (or and maneuver of your choice). It is definitely situational, but then most traits are.
It varies from group to group. My suggestion is you would bump into them or they would nudge you and you would have to continue moving into (or back into) a legal space and would be limited to a standard. That said, I don't make players hide their minis when they turn invis and I don't really mind if they meta-game that little bit so it never comes up in my game.
PS:There will always be exploits. My solution is to not play with such people. This is my general philosophy also, and the majority of my gaming is done with small select groups of people. I do play and run PFS to help keep business flowing into the FLGS and you inevitably wind up bumping into this sort of thing there and at the (rare) convention I attend :( So I really DO appreciate when things get fixed.
It doesn't die, you just have to pay to upgrade it one more time than you have to pay to upgrade a masterwork weapon. The difference is 360gp. If you want grandpas expensive glaive take rich parents and you have your masterwork glaive. If you want proficiency with a weapon you don't otherwise have, take this. You have two paths to get where you want to go.
I can live with unbalanced for a couple of levels because nothing is perfectly balanced at all levels. At any given point in time, there will always be one trait/class feature/feat/widget that is mechanically better than everything else. As long as it isn't always the same thing, than the trait/class feature/feat/widget is probably as balanced as one can reasonably expect from this particular system. Why does it ever need to be unbalanced? Because it limits story ideas... The problem with this is you can use it to make ANY trait overpowered, then suddenly everyone has a 'unique' story about grandpa's glaive. If you just make it balanced then the people who take it are the ones who actually care about the story of grandpa's glaive.
Let me be clear, I don't mind the majority of the changes, but restricting the weapon to a normal simple or martial weapon just because of a mere +1 from masterwork or the chance a powergamer might abuse an exotic weapon removes far more potential stories than I think the problem justifies. I don't really care if a player gets a +1 that everyone will have by 3rd level anyway; it's not that empowering for long enough to matter in a campaign, it gives the player a reason to spend a trait to give the DM plothooks, and its still tied to a single weapon, which is a big limitation in most games. Not letting me have a +5 dragonsbane greataxe at first level limits potential stories too.
They aren't paying for a weapon. They are paying to have the old glaive grandpa used in the war enhanced. It's no different from upgrading it with magic (which no one seems to mind).I do mind, actually. I started on BECMI (and later AD&D 2e) where making a magical item wasn't the trivial process it is in 3.x Then getting a masterwork weapon isn't any help regardless, grandpas masterwork glaive will just be obsolete a level or two later.
I've taken additional traits for a character. I don't have him in front of me at the moment but i think it was tusked, reactionary, accelerated drinker, and the trait that gives a bonus to will saves (or maybe the half or one that gives you a bonus to charge speed). I was pretty happy with the combo. Finding four traits that are interesting in different categories is challenging though. I have to say I prefer the traits from the racial books best because they tend to have a bit more flavor IMO. Its hard to say what exactly makes a trait balanced, it is largely a tightrope act. If a trait is obviously better than other traits (heirloom weapon being an obvious example) then it's probably too powerful. Personally I like the plus one/ class skill traits because it's a quit way to pick up plus four in a non class skill you want to pick up. I know lots of people use goldfinger, I use brightness seeker to pick up k(local) and I've used it to grab diplomacy also. The funny thing about good traits is they often affect the way players role play their characters.
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.I'd be inclined to call foul on a PC paying the full cost for a new weapon then claiming it was the original. The roleplaying value of the trait becomes meaningless (as it does if, mechanically, the character is encouraged to throw the weapon away as soon as a better one becomes available). They aren't paying for a weapon. They are paying to have the old glaive grandpa used in the war enhanced. It's no different from upgrading it with magic (which no one seems to mind).
I haven't seen any real evidence that the fix relates directly to PFS. It was criticized in the general forums at the time as being too good for a trait, maybe you missed those discussions. PFS has many traits and feats that are not allowed, if it was a PFS specific problem they could have easily just disallowed it. Do you have some specific reason for thinking the change relates to PFS?
Also PFS banned. Actually, the new version is fine outside of PFS, it's only really nerfed in PFS where you can't use the spell to upgrade to MW.
I wonder if I can use this spell with PFS... hmm.No. The effects of every long-term spell in PFS are reduced to "Until the end of the scenario" even for instantaneous duration spells. Hmm. Curious, I knew duration permanent spells ended, I hadn't heard duration instant spells had even been brought up. I don't suppose you have an example?
And while the spell is legal, all spell durations end at the end of a scenario, even ones that create permanent things, so this would still not work.Well, that is such a massive change to the trait that I wonder what it will mean to all the players who have enchanted their old masterwork heirloom weapon? The easiest thing I can see is to simply let them subtract the masterwork cost from their current gold and keep adventuring, even though normally a regular weapon cannot be upgraded to masterwork.Ultimate Magic provided the solution. Hmm. I'm not sure this is true. Spells that have a duration of 'permanent' do not work past the end of the scenario. Masterwork transformation has a duration of Instantaneous which means it makes a permanent but non-magical change to an item, a subtle but significant difference. I would want some clarification on it before I used it personally though.
That would allow you to keep your heirloom, masterwork it, and the apply magic to it. Short of it being sundered or stolen, you will have it the rest of your career AND have it be up to snuff. It's a trait. It's now as powerful as a typical trait (arguably still slightly more powerful than many but it's much much closer to where a trait belongs). The spell allows you to keep the trait useful for the life of the character which IMO was the only real problem with the fix. Overall, it's a good result.
Not being able to use magic to enhance it with magic makes it nearly worthless past that level. Yeah, seems like an easy fix, it's duration instantaneous so it's permanent and non-dispellable. Someone else pointed that spell out but I didn't catch that it was permanent. I wonder if I can use this spell with PFS... hmm.
Well the good news is it fixes the biggest parts of the feat that were broken:
The bad news is it turns it into a feat which is only really useful for a few levels. Once you get past 3-4th level it's pretty meh. Not being able to use magic to enhance it with magic makes it nearly worthless past that level. This is actually on-par with a fair number of other traits though so it's 'balanced' on whole against typical traits, but will likely get passed over by most players as most feats that are only useful for a few levels are. Some curious uses here though, primarily for getting proficiency with a racial or martial weapon for characters who don't have access to those weapons. Inquisitors might use it to snag a martial melee weapon. Non-martial halflings might find it worthwhile to grab this to pick up a slingstaff. Add in Greater Magic Weapon at higher levels and possibly some magic ammo and it's quite serviceable. Hmm... I think there is some life to this feat yet and I'll be it will still get used in spite of the 'nerf'.
I don't find anything humorous about a guy having his head knocked into his guts while unidentifiable organs spurt out over him. It's ridiculously graphic, to me exaggerated so much it's funny. Regardless, it's a false choice which fortunately we aren't forced to make. Paizo has much better artwork than either of those examples.
If the choice is between some sort of semi-naked anime image and old-school humorous D&D art, I'll take the old school any day. I guess you feel differently but I honestly would prefer to see humorous action rather than soft core porn that has little to do with the game.
This has been dinged around a few times with little or no real conclusive answer. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where PFS kind of falls short of home play where you can just ask your GM and deal with it. Considering it's roughly equal to a composite longbow it is clearly not overpowered. My suggestion is to go for it but have your character keep a longbow as a back-up weapon. Keep in mind that since it's essentially a double weapon enhancements to the sling portion and staff portion need to be paid for separately.
Yeah! It's like they weren't even designed to be a PC race! There is no "PC" block in the bestiary. There is an "Aasimar Characters" section for developing NPCs though. The bestiary listings are not designed for PC use (though many of them work fine as they are).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
