Is Heirloom Weapon Overpowered?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 243 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
I've made one or two absurdest arguments in my time, but MAN! This thread puts me to shame!

I assume you mean the guy trolling saying he can have a +5 vorpal sword at 1st level because it's magical, and therefore a MW sword? He's just trolling. You have the advantage of at least being sincere in your absurdity. :)


grasshopper_ea wrote:
If your level 1 character can afford the +5 Vorpal sword and the feat pays 300 gold for the masterwork component you are correct, because the feat pays for the masterwork component. I haven't played in a game where I had starting gold over 1000 gold though.

The trait does not simply comp the masterwork price. It allows you to start with a masterwork weapon, but pay only the standard cost at character creation. The standard cost for a bastard sword is 35gp.

mdt wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've made one or two absurdest arguments in my time, but MAN! This thread puts me to shame!
I assume you mean the guy trolling saying he can have a +5 vorpal sword at 1st level because it's magical, and therefore a MW sword? He's just trolling. You have the advantage of at least being sincere in your absurdity. :)

Of course it's absurd! If you bothered to read the post I was originally responding to (it was quoted in my post), you'd realize my remark was entirely contrary and intentionally absurd.

You engaged me so I was duty bound to defend my stance, that's all.

The remark I think is absurd is the individual claiming that the term "selected weapon" in Weapon Focus means both, "one weapon" and "many weapons" simultaneously.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Name Violation wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've made one or two absurdest arguments in my time, but MAN! This thread puts me to shame!
+1

Actually, your statement as to what was and was not fluff was one of the things in this thread that I found absurd. :P

mdt wrote:
I assume you mean the guy trolling saying he can have a +5 vorpal sword at 1st level because it's magical, and therefore a MW sword?

Yes, that was another one. :)

Liberty's Edge

mdt wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've made one or two absurdest arguments in my time, but MAN! This thread puts me to shame!
I assume you mean the guy trolling saying he can have a +5 vorpal sword at 1st level because it's magical, and therefore a MW sword?

Well, he could -- if the first thing he did was spend 200,000gp getting it upgraded.

:-P

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:
Name Violation wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I've made one or two absurdest arguments in my time, but MAN! This thread puts me to shame!
+1

Actually, your statement as to what was and was not fluff was one of the things in this thread that I found absurd. :P

i thought it would have been the "type" argument. Unfortunately thats the only definition of "type" the book gives us for weapons.

i stick by the view if its not in the prereq/benefit/special lines it doesnt matter what it says. That stuff isnt rules.

Am I wrong?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

By your interpretation, you can't actually select any weapon with weapon focus. While the rules text mentions a selected weapon, only the so-called fluff text technically specifies that you select the weapon.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Revan wrote:
By your interpretation, you can't actually select any weapon with weapon focus. While the rules text mentions a selected weapon, only the so-called fluff text technically specifies that you select the weapon.

Pretty much this.


My opinion is that the trait is too powerful for a trait, or even for a feat possibly. You already have weapon focus and greater weapon focus
(at 8th lvl as a fighter) giving a similar benefit, a +1 to hit isn't a problem on it's own it is the stackability of that +1 that is a problem and either way too much for a trait to give.

The rest of the trait I hardly care about, though the proficiency bonus is a significant benefit at 1st or 2nd level, especially for characters never intending to take more feats in it, so they can wield it from 1st level onwards (without a -4 penalty). I'd rather have the text changed to say 'you never take a non-proficiency penalty to hit with your heirloom weapon'. The free MW weapon component is a minor benefit, nice at 1st or 2nd level, but fairly insignificant afterwards.

My suggested fixes :

1) no non-proficiency penalty to hit
2) free MW weapon component (300 gp discount)

these allow a character to start with the weapon and feel good about it, characters can't usually start with a MW weapon afterall and not every class can take exotic proficiency from the start. To make it worthwhile a minor benefit should be added to replace these benefits at higher levels or do not want to pick an exotic weapon, I suggest :

3) If you are already proficient with this weapon you get a +1 trait bonus on damage with the selected weapon.

Much less spectacular than a +1 bonus to hit, but half the worth of weapon specialization afterall, and slightly less advantageous for 2hand weapon wielders, but they are already king of damage and if they really want to maximize damage they will still pick this trait.


Majuba wrote:
Shar Tahl wrote:
Is using a weapon not normally on the class list that big of a problem? Cleric's do it with their deity weapon.

Yes. I know plenty of people who choose their deity based on that free weapon proficiency for instance.

Also, this is *better* than exotic weapon proficiency, just on the proficiency side. For a martial character, it's equal to it. However, a character without +1 BAB at first level does not qualify for the Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat. But they can take this.

For the record, I offered a feat in my Runelords game that *only* gave a masterwork weapon at first level, and it was chosen.

If anyone's looking to nudge this lower yet, could make it weapon familiarity instead of proficiency (free proficiency if martial or simple, or considered martial if exotic).

Yeah I don't see it as overpowered. I do see your feat you offered in your Runelords campaign as severely underpowered, and a huge trap. Perhaps stepping back and resetting your goggles will help.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm with the guy who said that he'd never take this trait unless the game capped at 2nd level. Likewise, I've never bothered to take this trait on any of my PCs because I see it as a weakness, though some of my players and friends have taken the trait for various reasons (a swashbuckler in our current game took the trait to get a swordbreaker dagger that was handed down from his mother, etc).

Honestly, as a GM I'd be very sad to see the Paizo-folks nerf this trait, because of how very uninspiring it is. Wanna know a great trait? Reactionary! That trait is pretty much an auto-select for my characters. If I could, I'd take it twice on every character. :P

The heirloom weapon trait is very underwhelming to me because it's just a weapon. See, I understand that it's a masterwork weapon and you get a +1 trait bonus to hit with it, but that's pretty mild. You can slather an oil of magic weapon on your 0 gp club and turn it into a +1 magic weapon for an hour, and have spent your trait on something relatively useful in the long run.

As others have pointed out, the trait becomes exceptionally useless the moment something happens to your weapon. Maybe some games don't ever risk damage to your items and equipment, but let's just say there's a lot of possibilities for it to happen if your GM didn't decide to coddle you.

An orcish warrior attempts a Sunder after you already got your AoO for the round, and snaps your weapon. A wizard cares little for your masterwork tothpick and slams you with a shatter spell and breaks it. A high level sorcerer decides he really dislikes you slaughtering his allies with your +5 doomsday sword of heirloomic destruction, nurfs it with a quickened dispel magic followed by shatter (or heightened shatter even) and leaves you to scrape up the pieces.

How about nightwalkers, rust monsters, slimes or demons (while the base damage on many of the oozes won't hurt a metal weapon, larger than average oozes can melt them good)? Yeah, bad news here as well.

Let's go a bit further and look at the fact you can't pierce damage reductions with it. At least, not without getting it to a +5 magic weapon ASAP, meaning that you'll likely have plenty of times where you have to swap it out.

Then you also have what you might call situations during the game where you have to leave it behind. Flying through the air and some fool in the sky disarms you and your sword falls in a river? Well, time to go find a diviner and go on a quest to retrieve your heirloom weapon, or suck it up 'cause you're out a trait.

Also, for those complaining about weapon proficiency, it's only with that specific heirloom weapon. That means if you - for example - grabbed a sweet exotic weapon with your heirloom weapon, you can't carry backup versions of that weapon. So you can't have a cold iron hooksword and a silver hooksword for different situations, and you can't have any nice treasures that pop up, and if you've built around a fighting style based around that weapon.

At the end of the day, wanna know what the heirloom weapon trait really gives you? A +1 trait bonus to hit in a very situational circumstance (IE - be wielding this one weapon right here). Everything else is essentially useless by 3rd level (masterwork? Pft, I had magic weapon at 1st level).

==================================
Traits I would actually consider pretty amazing would include:
Reactionary: +2 Initiative, enough said.
Blade of Mercy: Ignore penalties to inflict nonlethal damage with ANY slashing weapon, and get a +1 trait bonus on damage with it to boot.
Armor Expert: Reduce all armor check penalties by 1.
Courageous: +2 Trait bonus on saves vs fear effects.
Killer: A flat +2, +3, +4, or even +5 damage on a critical hit. No drawbacks.
Resilient: A flat +1 bonus on Fortitude saves. Nice.
Desperate Focus: A flat +2 bonus on Concentration checks. Yes please.
Diabolic Dabbler: Summoned fiendish creatures get +1 HP / HD.
Birthmark: Birthmark acts as divine focus and grants +2 vs charms and compulsions (this one is amazing, and prevents holy symbol from being disarmed or sundered to prevent spellcasting).

Heck, any of the "you get a +1 bonus and one of these two skills is a class skill" traits aren't bad either if you want to avoid multiclassing and get a permanent +1/+3 or +4 to a non-class skill.

However, I tend to avoid rich parents AND heirloom weapon because they just aren't useful in the long term.


Deyvantius wrote:
Midnightoker wrote:


What if at first level with that UMD you got a wand of something for free?

that is basically what this trait does.

Well at LVL 1 you won't be too effective with UMD but I see your point.

It really all boils down to the value you put on additional benefits at lvl 1. I don't see giving anyone a masterwork weapon, an additional +1 to hit, or a specific proficiency to be that big of a deal.

Then again I play with a GM who pulls no punches. While him specifically targeting your weapon is not a 100% guarantee, the fact that it's possible would prevent me from ever taking this trait. I'd much rather have a +1 to save or making a non class-skill a class skill.

Same here, actually. Also yes, UMD is pretty awesome right from first level. Partially charged wands are cheap (that is a wand of X with Y charges left in them), and you can buy them at even fairly small population centers as their value falls well within the given gold limitations. These wands can be used to do things like...

Heal your party between encounters (15 gp / charge).
Increase your speed by +10ft for 1 hour (15 gp / charge).
Increase your AC by +4 for 1 hour (15 gp / charge).
Purify your food and drink supplies (7.5 gp / charge).
Stop someone from dying at negative hp (7.5 gp / charge).
Create a cloud of mist for 1 minute to cover your escape (15 gp / charge).
Remove fear or grant a +4 vs fear for 1 hour (15 gp / charge).
Determine North without survival checks (7.5 gp / charge).
Alter your appearance for 10 minutes (15 gp / charge).

Meanwhile, at higher levels you can happily enjoy being able to prance around in demon armor while wielding a holy avenger in one hand and throwing meteor swarms with the staff in your other hand.

Sovereign Court

Ashiel wrote:
As others have pointed out, the trait becomes exceptionally useless the moment something happens to your weapon. Maybe some games don't ever risk damage to your items and equipment, but let's just say there's a lot of possibilities for it to happen if your GM didn't decide to coddle you.

That's true. The solution though is just don't play with GM's that try and target your stuff and "get you" in various ways.

If a GM started messing with me like that I'd just maturely step out of the campaign. The game's there to make me feel awesome, not un-awesome.

"Hey, remember the time when you invested a lot of time developing that cool backstory for your heirloom weapon, weaving all sorts of details from the history the GM had developed for the setting. It really showed the GM how into the campaign you were and that you wanted that weapon to be tied to the great events that would transpire?

Yeah, and the best part was in the next session when the GM had a no-name orc smash it to pieces, afterwards saying he wanted us to feel 'challenged.' I believe that was one of the most fun and enjoyable RPG sessions I've ever experienced!"

With PFS I always try and get an idea of how the GM runs things before I sit down, and if they are a bit bloodthirsty then I just arrange to sit at another table, or make an excuse that I need to bow out for that session. Fortunately for PFS the frantic pace of games means that GM's rarely even have time to contemplate these types of things.

As far as monster's go, just don't use vulnerable weapons when the monsters attack. Every martial character worth anything will have a golfbag of different weapons at the ready.


Mok wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
As others have pointed out, the trait becomes exceptionally useless the moment something happens to your weapon. Maybe some games don't ever risk damage to your items and equipment, but let's just say there's a lot of possibilities for it to happen if your GM didn't decide to coddle you.

That's true. The solution though is just don't play with GM's that try and target your stuff and "get you" in various ways.

If a GM started messing with me like that I'd just maturely step out of the campaign. The game's there to make me feel awesome, not un-awesome.

I suppose you don't play in games where your characters can fail, die, and/or not succeed, then?

Quote:

"Hey, remember the time when you invested a lot of time developing that cool backstory for your heirloom weapon, weaving all sorts of details from the history the GM had developed for the setting. It really showed the GM how into the campaign you were and that you wanted that weapon to be tied to the great events that would transpire?

Yeah, and the best part was in the next session when the GM had a no-name orc smash it to pieces, afterwards saying he wanted us to feel 'challenged.' I believe that was one of the most fun and enjoyable RPG sessions I've ever experienced!"

Yeah totally man. It was wicked awesome with the GM had that one orc throw down his weapon when he could have permanently smashed the wizard with the three page backstory. Having the orc ignore and/or surrender to the mage was a testament to the GM's quality and story-telling abilities.

I'm a really bad GM though, because I might actually let something bad happen to you while you're out supposedly risking life and limb doing stuff that borders on complete insanity (like having a group of four people explore a dungeon full of hostile creatures that outnumber them, likely outmatch them, and have devious traps and/or dirty tricks to murder them with).

The greatest example of my badwrongfun-GMing would be how I might let the orcs attempt to sunder a party member's swordbreaker dagger after he used it (and his exceedingly high disarm modifier) to reduce incoming damage from 2d6+6 to 1d3+4 nonlethal provoking attacks. That would be very naughty of me. Also, having enemies using locked gauntlets would probably be very bad as well. It's probably also a very bad thing that my kobolds use stuff like flasks of acid and alchemist fire as part of their NPC equipment.

You're absolutely right. I'm an absolute bastard GM because I don't coddle players by pretending that some of the rules, combat options, and spells, aren't just for them and them only. Maybe one day I will find my GMing morality. Until then, I guess I shall merely have to listen to the screams of the PCs as their character sheets are BBQed over the flames of alchemist fires, and smile when they cheer for victory over the enemies who weren't making it a habit of intentionally leaping upon their blades to make them feel cooler (I guess that makes it more of an actual cool factor, as opposed to an illusion of cool factor).

Quote:
With PFS I always try and get an idea of how the GM runs things before I sit down, and if they are a bit bloodthirsty then I just arrange to sit at another table, or make an excuse that I need to bow out for that session. Fortunately for PFS the frantic pace of games means that GM's rarely even have time to contemplate these types of things.

Interesting.

Quote:
As far as monster's go, just don't use vulnerable weapons when the monsters attack. Every martial character worth anything will have a golfbag of different weapons at the ready.

I'm totally down with this. My characters tend to keep a club (the 0gp kind), sling (0 gp kind), a few useful weapons (different damage types, etc), my favorite piece of gear, and a couple of odd materials (such as cold iron ammo, etc) for emergencies. I think being prepared is part of the experience, and having to deal with "natural setbacks" as being part of the game.

For the record, natural setback is like having your weapon sundered, or getting tossed off a bridge into a river.

Unnatural setbacks is having the GM screwing you over with GM fiat.

PPS: Thanks again for showing me the right way to play the game, by ignoring tactical considerations, and allowing only the PCs to use basic combat rules and spells. Thanks dude, I had totally missed that in all the time I've been at it.


I do not really see a big drawback, as I get it most high level players upgrade excisting weapons anyway since they are too expensive to find on npcs ready made in general, in the hopefully rare case it happens it will suck because you lose your main weapon, not because you are (temporarily) deprived of the use of your one trait

Weapons can be fairly easily repaired like any other weapon and they rarely break in one blow anyway, so you can get another weapon instead if it gets damaged. Make whole can do easily at the low levels, at higher levels repairing it at half cost or limited wish/wish can usually fix it.
How often does it happen that a weapon is shattered and it is thrown away never to be used again ?

+1 to hit is pretty huge, people often fail to see the significance, if you are fighting an opponent with two attacks hitting on an 11+ and the next 16+, it increases your chance to hit and thus your damage by 10% for the first and 20% for the second attack increasing average dpr by 13.3%, exactly the reasons making Weapon Focus a good feat make this an overpowered trait

Sovereign Court

Ashiel wrote:
I suppose you don't play in games where your characters can fail, die, and/or not succeed, then?

Well, I can't expect everyone to bend over backwards for me, but when we sit down for a campaign I've made it crystal clear that I have no desire to be challenged in my game. My ideal game enacts a "manifest destiny of awesomeness." It's not a story of IF my character will succeed, but rather a tale of HOW the character is fated to save the world and bring balance to the order of the universe.

I can't always get that, but I play with GMs that are willing to work with me on that and try and accommodate it. The biggest flack is really when someone else at the table is a hard-core gamist player who wants endless challenges, and see's my position as fundamentally unfair, because if I'm not challenged then he whines and cries about it. I've just learned over the years to avoid those players.

But my previous post didn't come off as well as I would have liked. I have no problem with others wanting to have hard and challenging games. I just don't want to play in them.

I'd fully hope in games I play in the the PCs are special, that the rules are different for them. That the players are the fated irregular mixture that has emerged in the world that is going to do things differently and overwhelm the denizens trapped in their old world views and methods.

After 30 years of RPGs I'm just kind of done with "them's the breaks" fickle-fate worldviews. I'm much more eager to play a Tolkienesque game where there is a divine hand working behind the scenes to make sure what seems like random miracles is actually a grand plan playing itself out. Overall my perfect GM would be using heavy illusionist methods to trick the gamist into thinking that their being challenged, while accommodating my desire to see the assumption of the PCs into their venerated status.

PFS is something I play a lot because it's easy to grab and game when the schedule permits. I'm a veteran player and I know how to run the meta-game in a non-intrusive way to avoid the pitfalls of the kind of game elements I don't like.

But I completely acknowledge that there is a wide range of play styles and expectations. That's totally cool and there is an abundance of play opportunities in my area to find games closer to what I want, and allow other's to play the games they want.


Mok wrote:

I'd fully hope in games I play in the the PCs are special, that the rules are different for them. That the players are the fated irregular mixture that has emerged in the world that is going to do things differently and overwhelm the denizens trapped in their old world views and methods.

After 30 years of RPGs I'm just kind of done with "them's the breaks" fickle-fate worldviews. I'm much more eager to play a Tolkienesque game where there is a divine hand working behind the scenes to make sure what seems like random miracles is actually a grand plan playing itself out. Overall my perfect GM would be using heavy illusionist methods to trick the gamist into thinking that their being challenged, while accommodating my desire to see the assumption of the PCs into their venerated status.

Interesting, I am exactly the opposite, as I get older I am longing for more 'mature' games which are more gritty and realistic, I do not want to know for sure my character is going to succeed, if I feel the GM is being particulary soft after we got trashed that kills the game for me.

A GM actively trying to screw players with tactics that are seen as non-enjoyable and lame are something else, personally me and other players/GMs I play with dislike sundering tactics and we use it rarely, and never take the feats to improve sundering, it is bad for cashflow anyways.


Mok wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
I suppose you don't play in games where your characters can fail, die, and/or not succeed, then?
Well, I can't expect everyone to bend over backwards for me, but when we sit down for a campaign I've made it crystal clear that I have no desire to be challenged in my game. My ideal game enacts a "manifest destiny of awesomeness." It's not a story of IF my character will succeed, but rather a tale of HOW the character is fated to save the world and bring balance to the order of the universe.

Have you considered writing novels, by chance?

Quote:

I can't always get that, but I play with GMs that are willing to work with me on that and try and accommodate it. The biggest flack is really when someone else at the table is a hard-core gamist player who wants endless challenges, and see's my position as fundamentally unfair, because if I'm not challenged then he whines and cries about it. I've just learned over the years to avoid those players.

But my previous post didn't come off as well as I would have liked. I have no problem with others wanting to have hard and challenging games. I just don't want to play in them.

You do realize in this case, Heirloom weapon could be considered sufficiently powerful enough to be OP, while simultaneously being completely not-OP because nothing can be OP (it doesn't really matter what your stats are if you're destined to succeed anyway).

Quote:

I'd fully hope in games I play in the the PCs are special, that the rules are different for them. That the players are the fated irregular mixture that has emerged in the world that is going to do things differently and overwhelm the denizens trapped in their old world views and methods.

After 30 years of RPGs I'm just kind of done with "them's the breaks" fickle-fate worldviews. I'm much more eager to play a Tolkienesque game where there is a divine hand working behind the scenes to make sure what seems like random miracles is actually a grand plan playing itself out. Overall my perfect GM would be using heavy illusionist methods to trick the gamist into thinking that their being challenged, while accommodating my desire to see the assumption of the PCs into their venerated status.

That's cool, but at this point we're not talking about the same game at all. You're talking about a game that resembles D&D/Pathfinder but is definitely not the game we're discussing. Hence discussing this trait based on these assumptions of "ideal gaming scenario" is fundamentally useless.

Quote:

PFS is something I play a lot because it's easy to grab and game when the schedule permits. I'm a veteran player and I know how to run the meta-game in a non-intrusive way to avoid the pitfalls of the kind of game elements I don't like.

But I completely acknowledge that there is a wide range of play styles and expectations. That's totally cool and there is an abundance of play opportunities in my area to find games closer to what I want, and allow other's to play the games they want.

By drastically changing what not only will but can be faced at all, you are going to drastically change the metagame. If you specifically prefer games where magic-immune golems run amok all over the place, then conjuration wizards are going to seem more OP, or more specifically non-conjuration wizards are going to see very UP.

By basically denying the fact there are countless risks and dangers that the person with heirloom weapon is going to face that threaten not to merely remove a piece of replaceable equipment then you make the heirloom weapon trait seem far more attractive (even though ultimately it's only a +1 to hit with your favorite weapon past 3rd level).

In a game where all things are equal - that is PCs may suffer at the hands of sunders, shatters, monster abilities, and other hazards normally - then the trait might even need to be BETTER to make it worth taking at all, so being OP isn't a consideration.

But when you start changing the way the game works, you'd best not be surprised when stuff stops working as intended. I have a lot of house rules in my games but I don't bring those house rules, or situations that arise from those house rules, into discussions like this.

ALSO: If it's good enough for Xykon then it's good enough for me. :P


Sorry for the thread necromancy...

I'm just wondering if Heirloom Weapon trait gives you 'real' proficiency with say, all 'longswords' or if the proficiency is just for your 'grandpa's longsword'.

Thanks!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Overwhelming Necromancy aura detected. *gains Stunned condition for 6 seconds*

...

...

...

Okay, I think it passed.

More seriously, the trait says it's for that specific weapon, so it would be the second one, "only daddy's sword."


Heirloom weapon has the option to give proficiency with one specific weapon, so it's just "grandpa's longsword" to use your example. There are 2 other options, but they are also only for the specific weapon. Heirloom weapon


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Was the Heirloom Weapon trait errataed since 2011? The current version actually looks pretty crappy to me. There are other traits that give you far better benefits stacked with proficiency with certain weapons.


From this thread Notice-heirloom weapon errated it's the same trait as then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It was changed yes.

Considering it gave a 300+ gp weapon, a +1 that stacked with everything, and proficiency in that weapon, it was basically 2 feats and a trait.

It's not really crappy though as it still gives proficiency in a weapon for a trait, and unlike most other traits it's allowing you a wide variety of options or the power of a feat in to hit bonus


crappy trait- pass! :)

thanks to you all!


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
ChaiGuy wrote:
From this thread Notice-heirloom weapon errated it's the same trait as then.

That thread started a few days after the last 2011 post to this thread.

It is rare that we come across a dead thread whose cause of death is this obvious.


GM PDK wrote:

crappy trait- pass! :)

thanks to you all!

It's still a pretty good trait. Just significantly more limited than it once way.


crappy! you lose daddy's sword = retraining

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
crappy! you lose daddy's sword = retraining

If you are referring to the character retraining rules, I believe Traits are pretty much the only thing you can't actually retrain...


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
crappy! you lose daddy's sword = retraining
If you are referring to the character retraining rules, I believe Traits are pretty much the only thing you can't actually retrain...

Hmm. We had some discussion about Additional Traits here a while ago, whether you could retrain this feat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While RAW, it's not possible, the rule of thumb is that a trait is equivalent to half a feat, and so allowing it to happen for half the cost and time of a feat is a very reasonable starting point.

However, since traits are of a character's background, it also makes sense for them not to be retrainable, since it's basically retconning your character background.

Similarly, if a character's background is murky or unknown, and later revealed to them, it might make sense for Ad hoc retraining.

Decisions, decisions...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM PDK wrote:
crappy! you lose daddy's sword = retraining

If you have so little faith in your GM that you believe that you believe they would cause you to permanently and irrevocably cause you to lose the sword of your ancestors without recompense when you've spent character creation resources on it, then your relationship with your GM is caustic.

Also, the point of traits is flavor, not power.


Ancestral weapon instead?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ancestral Weapon is certainly OP for a trait and luckily is region locked with very specific flavor (d20pfsrd alters it but Archives of Nethys has the actual wording).

As a sidenote, heirloom weapon is still great. It gives you proficiency without costing you a feat and you can get it made mwk and upgrade it to magic by having the party caster cast Masterwork Transformation. I've literally never had a character "lose" their weapon in any way so I really don't see that as much of a problem unless you have an antagonistic GM who is trying to screw you over.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Omnius wrote:
Also, the point of traits is flavor, not power.

Too bad numerous written options betray that premise, even though I remember seeing a clause that outright states traits weren't meant to be some backdoor way of super-powering your character in ways that other options (including feats) can't match.

That isn't to say that we can't have unique traits, but when those traits are more powerful and available than any equivalent feat, there's a problem.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I do wish there was a trait, even if it ate both your traits, that gave proficiency with one weapon of any kind.

I'd be so much more inclined to use the variety of cool but mechanically not worth it exotic weapons.

learning some weird weapon since childhood sounds very much like a character trait (the term not the game definition)


Zwordsman wrote:

I do wish there was a trait, even if it ate both your traits, that gave proficiency with one weapon of any kind.

I'd be so much more inclined to use the variety of cool but mechanically not worth it exotic weapons.

learning some weird weapon since childhood sounds very much like a character trait (the term not the game definition)

Ripsaw glaive!

*Revs the chainsaw!*


Omnius wrote:
Zwordsman wrote:

I do wish there was a trait, even if it ate both your traits, that gave proficiency with one weapon of any kind.

I'd be so much more inclined to use the variety of cool but mechanically not worth it exotic weapons.

learning some weird weapon since childhood sounds very much like a character trait (the term not the game definition)

Ripsaw glaive!

*Revs the chainsaw!*

I ws thinking Injection Spear myself~

Perfect weapon for my "Oh my day job is just an exterminator. Yakno rats, bugs, that kind of thing" alchemist. For days when he has bigger versions to clean out of a castle


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Overwhelming Necromancy aura detected. *gains Stunned condition for 6 seconds

Only 6 seconds, from a 6 YEAR necromancy? Surely you jest.


taks wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Overwhelming Necromancy aura detected. *gains Stunned condition for 6 seconds
Only 6 seconds, from a 6 YEAR necromancy? Surely you jest.

Of course he is jesting. To detect as a necromancy aura you use detect magic, which does not stun. Now if he had instead used detect evil, he would of been stunned for 6 seconds.

Quote:
If you are of good alignment, and the strongest evil aura's power is overwhelming (see below), and the HD or level of the aura's source is at least twice your character level, you are for 1 round and the spell ends.


Well, it's not unreasonable to assume that the source of Evil is Necromantic in nature, so...yeah.

Joke's on you guys. :P

Silver Crusade Contributor

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Omnius wrote:
Also, the point of traits is flavor, not power.

Too bad numerous written options betray that premise, even though I remember seeing a clause that outright states traits weren't meant to be some backdoor way of super-powering your character in ways that other options (including feats) can't match.

That isn't to say that we can't have unique traits, but when those traits are more powerful and available than any equivalent feat, there's a problem.

Yup. Much as I wish it were so, when things like Magical Lineage, Tusked, and Magical Knack (among various others) are floating around, there's definitely a power factor involved.


Taja the Barbarian wrote:
GM PDK wrote:
crappy! you lose daddy's sword = retraining
If you are referring to the character retraining rules, I believe Traits are pretty much the only thing you can't actually retrain...

ha! so the trait is worse than crappy: it's a trap!


Covent wrote:
Ancestral weapon instead?

that one is pretty good... wow!

201 to 243 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is Heirloom Weapon Overpowered? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.