RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Doesn't help the 1st level rogue whose build just got eliminated.
The trait does allow you to take proficiency in 'daddy's war axe' it's just not masterwork and you don't get the trait bonus to hit.
Wait... I see where you're coming from. But the racial trait says "...and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon."
So to Dwarf rogue it's martial, not exotic, so he can take it with the trait. (Or burn a feat to get MWP at first level)
Oh, as to PF builds, Mark said that the issue would be addressed.
Right, so 1 race can do it. Doesn't help the Dwarf Rogue who wants to take his father's Dwarven War Axe.APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves are proficient with battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers, and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon.
Heirloom weapon: ...simple or martial weapon....
When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits: proficiency with that specific weaponYes, a dwarf can use his daddy dwarven waraxe. (or a elf a elven blade)
A human can't use the dwarven waraxe his father looted during the dwarf-human wars.
Just because a a weapon is treated as martial for you does not mean it is a martial weapon.
|
Just because a a weapon is treated as martial for you does not mean it is a martial weapon.Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves are proficient with battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers, and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon.
Heirloom weapon: ...simple or martial weapon....
When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits: proficiency with that specific weaponYes, a dwarf can use his daddy dwarven waraxe. (or a elf a elven blade)
A human can't use the dwarven waraxe his father looted during the dwarf-human wars.
Trying to nerf yourself to prove your point? The argument's getting weaselly.
|
You are right there is more then a pile of coins, but there are no specifics as to how the magic item is made, that is up to the players, and it is present IN THE CORE RULES. There might not be a wizard or a magic shop, but the party wizard can go in the woods and find the materials he needs or whatever the dm requires in said case. The point is, it isn't specific, and the core rules of the game allow it.
Even if you dont have a caster in your party, ANY character can take master craftsman and within the core rules of the game, make a magic weapon out of a masterwork one. The specifics are left up to the group, but the option is there within the base rules of the game.
Ultimage magic is not part of the core rules and is not part of the base assumption of the game. It is an extra in a book that the trait does not come in. Even if you have giant magic marts, the trait can be rendered useless by the simple fact that no one in the group owns or uses (or allows) ultimate magic.
The Adventurer Armory is even less core than Ultimate magic.
The problem with "the weapon enchanter go into the wood and find the needed stuff" is that if you allow that you make magic items even more available than with magic mart.
You can add plenty of houserules to make that work, but they need to be coherent with the game.
You can reduce a cornugon treasury but say that his blood is worth X gp when enchanting a weapon, or that if you refine the metal in a gorgon hide it will be sufficient to make a full plate +1, all good options full of flavour.
What you shouldn't do is say "the enchanter go into the wood and find what he need". It is a perfect way to imbalance the game.
Trying to nerf yourself to prove your point? The argument's getting weaselly.Just because a a weapon is treated as martial for you does not mean it is a martial weapon.Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves are proficient with battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers, and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon.
Heirloom weapon: ...simple or martial weapon....
When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits: proficiency with that specific weaponYes, a dwarf can use his daddy dwarven waraxe. (or a elf a elven blade)
A human can't use the dwarven waraxe his father looted during the dwarf-human wars.
Its not weasley. Its reading the rules. A Dwarven War Axe is an exotic weapon. Dwarves "treat is as a martial weapon". This does not mean that something that gives you a martial weapon will give you an exotic weapon, IMO. I would allow it (because I think the trait is now bad and don't see a problem with it), but that does not mean the way the rules are worded supports what I would allow, or that I can expect other GMs to rule the same way.
The Adventurer Armory is even less core than Ultimate magic.
That's what I was about to say.
Paizo will have to Errata the Errata.
The original trait was definitely TOO good.
The rework is horrible.
A new version should take several good examples explained on the messageboards. Ultimately it should look something like these options:
1. The heirloom weapon trait would give you a specific weapon (any type) of Masterwork Quality. Its up to you to become proficient in it.
2. The heirloom weapon trait would give you proficiency with a normal specific weapon (any type). This would work with most games except for PFS - where the real issue of this trait is at.
Unless the Masterwork Transformation spell is authorized at PFS then players could reenchant their Heirloom Weapons weapons when they have enough gold.
Otherwise the trait is worthless and a host of PFS characters will need to get reworked.
The Adventurer Armory is even less core than Ultimate magic.
You are missing the point. Someone can use the adventurer amrory without ultimate magic. That SHOULD be possible. I would put down large amounts of money that there are right now people on these boards that use products from the companion/setting lines but will not use Ultimate magic. There were a number of similar comments in the 'no more mega option books' threads. However ALL those people and everyone playing uses the core rule book. That IS required for using the adventurer's armory.
The problem with "the weapon enchanter go into the wood and find the needed stuff" is that if you allow that you make magic items even more available than with magic mart.
My point is that different dms handles this different ways. There is nothing in the rules that say the components for creating magic items must be purchased at a store, only that they are worth a certain amount of gold. How the players are able to aquire said materials, whether bought, harvested, found, or handwaved is up to the dm.
You can add plenty of houserules to make that work, but they need to be coherent with the game.
You can reduce a cornugon treasury but say that his blood is worth X gp when enchanting a weapon, or that if you refine the metal in a gorgon hide it will be sufficient to make a full plate +1, all good options full of flavour.What you shouldn't do is say "the enchanter go into the wood and find what he need". It is a perfect way to imbalance the game.
That wasn't meant to be taken literally. My point is that the dm can handle that however he chooses. Maybe the magic components are a quest item, or a special creature must be slain, or whatever the case may be. That is up to the dm. The only thing the book specifies is their worth, and how to use them.
In fact, saying they have to be bought in a store does far more to make the world less coherent. How is it that the shopkeep can obtain these materials but a 20th level wizard pc cannot? Certainly if the 3rd level adept running the apothacary can pick up newts tails and dragon horn dust to make a +1 sword, a party of adventures ought to be able to figure out a way to scrounge some up somewhere no?
The PF devs fixed this like they fixed the spiked chain. They took an option that was arguably a little too good and made completely worthless.
OK... maybe that's not quite fair. Spiked chain is an exotic weapon that's flat out inferior to a martial weapon, but maybe Heirloom weapon still has something going for it.
You get a simple or martial weapon, but you have to pay for it. Well that's not special, you get that any way.
Then you get to choose one of the following:
-Free proficiency in that weapon.
Your limited to simple or martial weapons, so not much for full Bab classes who already get weapon proficiency. Not much use for 1/2 Bab classes that don't rely on weapons. Maybe the odd Wizard that takes his HW as his bonded object. Wait, no... Bonded objects are always masterwork, so a Wizard can't start bonded with his HW. Only 3/4 Bab classes get any use out of this option, and free proficiency isn't bad for a trait, well free EWP wasn't bad, especially since 3/4 Bab couldn't take it till level 3. Well, I suppose wasting a trait on proficiency is better than wasting a feat.
-+1 on AoOs.
Wasn't there a trait that gave +1 on AoS to ALL weapons? (Checks)... No, Fencer only gave +1 with swords and daggers. So I guess getting any one weapon you want for trait isn't a bad deal. Can't pick an Elven Curve Blade, though. Since ECBs are martial for elves, does that mean my elven Paladin is in the clear?
-+2 on one kind of combat maneuver.
Combat Maneuvers are good, and +2 is like 1/2 a feat! (what do you know?) Wait, you can only use it on maneuver with the weapon. So, Disarm, Sunder, and Trip. Disarm and Sunder are only useful against creatures that carry equipment; so, Humanoids. Trip has it's limitations, but it's still a solid maneuver. Ahh, but no Exotics! So that limits us to Flails and a Guisarme. And scythes, also scythes. No whips, bolas, spiked chains, or hooked hammers. Monks get rogered too, cause they can't use any of their monk weapons.
Oh, and if you ever want to use a magic weapon, don't take this trait, cause grandpa's mundane axe can't be enchanted.
Maybe I should have led with that last bit. Not being able to have a MW heirloom alone makes this trait utter trash.
There is that spell from UM, though. So if your using UM in your game, and can find a NPC to cast it, that takes care of the Masterwork problem. It still doesn't address the EWP issue.
IMO, this trait needs to bring back both masterwork and exotic. The rest of the changes are pretty good.
Provided Masterwork Transmutation is ubiquitously available, you can leave out the masterwork, if that really bothers you, but being able to select an exotic weapon is imperative for the balance of the trait.
At least I can still take Sword Scion if I want to use a plain old longsword.
I would have "fixed" the original trait by allowing the +1 trait bonus to apply only if the character already had the proficiency with the weapon from some other source. This gives martial types a reason to take it over "Rich Parents", allows 3/4 BAB types to be able to use an exotic weapon (well THAT SPECIFIC exotic weapon) from first level, and allows the MW weapon to be enchanted without resorting to UM.
Removing the exotic weapon option was a step too far.
Really, I'd rather they addressed EWP and made it worth a full feat than spend too much time messing around with the powergame patch on EWP not being worth a full feat.
If it's been decided that the exotic-weapons-aren't-as-good-in-PF-as-in-3.5 is a good idea and sticking, I'd propose one of the following. Each is only relevant if a character spends a feat on exotic weapon proficiency, not if he is merely proficient in the weapon from another source, such as monks being proficient in temple sword or weapon familiarity.
1) My preference: If you're also proficient with all martial weapons, EWP also gives you your choice of one of a short list of base combat feats (say, Weapon Focus, Combat Expertise, or Weapon Finesse) while wielding that weapon. You can use this feat to meet the prerequisites of other feats, but if you do so, you may only use those feats while wielding that weapon. E.g., if you pick Combat Expertise as your EWP bonus to go with EWP: Spiked Chain and then take Improved Trip, you can only gain the benefits of Improved Trip while wielding a Spiked Chain.
2) Not as good, but better than the status quo: EWP gives you proficiency with one exotic weapon; for every 4 points of BAB you have, pick another exotic weapon to be proficient in. That would at least give you marginally more versatility in a purely-found-treasure game.
3) EWP gives you a +1 CMD vs. disarm and sunder attempts against the exotic weapon you're proficient in for every 4 points of BAB you have. You've got kind of a funny weapon, people aren't as knowledgeable in how to target it, and your martial skill lets you exploit that to protect the weapon, etc.
|
I would have "fixed" the original trait by allowing the +1 trait bonus to apply only if the character already had the proficiency with the weapon from some other source. This gives martial types a reason to take it over "Rich Parents", allows 3/4 BAB types to be able to use an exotic weapon (well THAT SPECIFIC exotic weapon) from first level, and allows the MW weapon to be enchanted without resorting to UM.
Thats..Reasonable actually, and would make a lot of sense, It would also boost taking the actual feat (or class) to be proficient in it..bravo
I didn't read the entire thread about this, but the spell Masterwork Transmutation turns a weapon into a different, better weapon. The spell may use the same weapon as a base weapon, but it's not the same exact weapon. Heirloom Weapon refers to a specific weapon made of non-masterwork quality. If that weapon somehow becomes masterwork, it's a different weapon.
Look at it a different way -- let's say you paint a painting. Someone can't come along and turn your painting into a masterwork. And even if they could, it wouldn't be a painting explicitly by you.
Even the text of the spell implies that the new weapon isn't the exact same weapon (equal to) -- but equivalent.
You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent.
In fact, if you use Masterwork Transmutation on your Heirloom Weapon, you should never be able to benefit from the trait.
I would have "fixed" the original trait by allowing the +1 trait bonus to apply only if the character already had the proficiency with the weapon from some other source. This gives martial types a reason to take it over "Rich Parents", allows 3/4 BAB types to be able to use an exotic weapon (well THAT SPECIFIC exotic weapon) from first level, and allows the MW weapon to be enchanted without resorting to UM.
+1
That's how I fixed it in my home games. It's also the most reasonable fix I've seen suggested on the numerous Heirloom weapon threads. I really love when it comes up.
The nerf stick was strong on this one.
|
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).
I didn't read the entire thread about this, but the spell Masterwork Transmutation turns a weapon into a different, better weapon. The spell may use the same weapon as a base weapon, but it's not the same exact weapon. Heirloom Weapon refers to a specific weapon made of non-masterwork quality. If that weapon somehow becomes masterwork, it's a different weapon.
Look at it a different way -- let's say you paint a painting. Someone can't come along and turn your painting into a masterwork. And even if they could, it wouldn't be a painting explicitly by you.
Even the text of the spell implies that the new weapon isn't the exact same weapon (equal to) -- but equivalent.
You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent.In fact, if you use Masterwork Transmutation on your Heirloom Weapon, you should never be able to benefit from the trait.
False.
The spell turns a regular longsword into its masterwork equivalent: a masterwork longsword. It's still the same weapon, just with the masterwork quality.
|
|
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).
is the original version of the trait really that bad?
i don't beleive the damn errata was neccessary
so what if you were proficient in this specific heirloom exotic weapon passed down your family among several generations? you had to take the appropriate proficiency feat if you wanted to specialize in it. and exotic weapon proficiency is bull fodder to begin with. it's not like you can carry backup curve blades or even spare falcatas for the moment DR becomes an issue.
so what if you got a +1 trait bonus to hit? you had to actually be using the weapon to benefit from the trait bonus. considering how cost prohibitive that special materials are. DR is a huge problem at the low levels so you would still have to carry multiple weapons. and any attack not made with your heirloom doesn't benefit from the +1. this trait actually encourages the golf bag of weapons.
and so what if the weapon was masterwork at 1st level? this advantage isn't even really that big, even at 1st level. another +1 to hit that gets overlapped by magic. this trait only saves you 300 gold pieces. 300 gold pieces is never really going to make a difference, especially when magical equipment can literally cost thousands.
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).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).
Ogre, i like your point.
|
|
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
Official errata was just released for the Heirloom Weapon trait.
Replace the Heirloom Weapon entry with the following text: “Heirloom Weapon: You carry a non-masterwork simple or martial weapon that has been passed down from generation to generation in your family (pay the standard gp cost for the weapon). When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits: proficiency with that specific weapon, a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity with that specific weapon, or a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon.”
Please discuss whether you think this change to be good, bad, balanced, unbalanced, etc. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
I think they went too far. I believe it needed a fix, but they turned an overly useful trait into a useless trait. When you choose a trait you want it to be useful all the time, not just at 1st level. That's weak.
So I think we'll go with the following:
Heirloom Weapon: You start with a MW Weapon. You gain a +1 trait bonus to CMD and CMB when using this weapon to perform maneuvers it is capable of performing due to familiarity with the weapon. You must have proficiency with the weapon to gain this bonus.
I think this is a better fix in line with the power of traits. Rich Parents grants you 900 gold which you purchase a MW weapon with. In general, traits give you half or less the normal bonus a feat would give. This imposes a reasonable limitation to grant a reasonable bonus for use with one weapon.
The trait wouldn't be overly attractive to all melee types. Yet it would be to certain builds and still be an attractive overall trait.
Heirloom Weapon: You start with a MW Weapon. You gain a +1 trait bonus to CMD and CMB when using this weapon to perform maneuvers it is capable of performing due to familiarity with the weapon. You must have proficiency with the weapon to gain this bonus.
Give the option of the +1 to CMB/CMD or proficiency with that particular weapon, and that would be the best one I've seen thus far. It allows for a variety of builds not currently possible at level 1, if at all, but is otherwise still mostly in line with the other traits. It is still one of the more powerful ones, but that doesn't bother me, as the limitation to a single weapon tends to balance that out.
|
is the original version of the trait really that bad?
i don't beleive the damn errata was neccessary...
While I do sympathise with many of your points. The trait as it stood was really too valuable for the same resource cost that typically allows a skill to be a class skill and have a +1 bonus.
Annoying for me certainly.....
imagine if you will the scion of a martial household who chooses to follow the path of wizardry but still wield the family bastard sword (not least via hand of the apprentice). Who adds further honour to the master forged blade by enchanting it.....
Annoying yes but understandable.
The big mistake IMHO is knocking it down to standard workmanship. It runs counter to intended flavour surely. If it is an heirloom then it will probably be of high quality and if it cannot be enchanted then it is really very poor value indeed when you could be getting a +1 bonus on a skill and making that skill a class skill...
Of course if there is a spell that allows the weapon to be enchanted to masterwork status for 360 gp it technically solves this but rather ruins the flavour.
C'est la vie.
W
|
|
In fact coming back to the matter after a few minutes thought...
I am reminded of an old Irish folk tale where 3 brothers set out from home to seek their fortunes and are each offered either a loaf of bread or half a loaf and their mother's blessing. Not surprsingly the two that took the loaf ended up worse than the youngest who took the blessing.....
I would be tempted to make it any MW weapon with specific proficiency for that weapon included with the same choice of a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity with that specific weapon, or a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver. BUT the cost of the weapon is 50% of the character's starting gold.
As to wether Masterwork Transformation results in being the same weapon. I think it does. Most handforged weapons start of with the potential of being a masterwork few are given the time needed to reach that potential, all the spell does is fix that. Also it specifically allows for the appearance to remain the same.
This humble suggestion I hope makes the trait less useful at level 1 and a little less useless thereafter
W
|
|
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.
The big mistake IMHO is knocking it down to standard workmanship. It runs counter to intended flavour surely.
How's this for flavor.
"My grandfather was a hero of the last war. He saved twenty men with his valorous charge. Saved the prince's life, too. The prince gave him a fine sword, engraved with grandfather's name. Grandfather couldn't read it, but the words are there. Here, see, at the edge of the rust and embedded dirt, you can make out a few letters.
"When the usurper took the throne, he had all soldiers loyal to the king and prince put to death. Grandfather threw the sword in the well so it wouldn't be found and his life would be spared. It sat there in the water for fifteen years. On his deathbed, Grandfather told my father about the sword, his heirloom, and Father kept it a secret for six more years until the paladins of Iomedae overthrew the usurper and restored the royal line to the throne, and placed it above the mantel.
"Now the sword is mine. It is rusted and battered, not the thing of beauty it once was. But I wield it to honor my grandfather. And one day it will shine again, and strike true. I don't have the skill to restore it, but I will find someone who can."
Masterwork weapon + not quite broken = weapon with +0 to hit/+0 to damage = heirloom weapon.
The only problem I have with that is that those kind of stories get old after a while. They work once or twice, but sometimes, it nice to see positive things written in people's backgrounds, not just doom and gloom. I don't care about the +1 all that much, although it helps, but by removing the masterwork part, you also remove the possibility for truly heroic stories free of neglect, trauma, or other dampeners, which are important to be able to have to remind people that heirlooms aren't limited to a specific type of background story. The presence of a story, not the type of story, is what is important.
Then what about this story:
"You call than an heirloom? It's a piece of junk!" :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know Mark is working on a solution to the masterwork transformation issue.
And as for someone not having/allowing UM, hey, I give you the option, if you choose to not use it, that's not my fault.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stephen did most of the dev work on that (I was busy working on the Beginner Box) so he'll have to answer that.
(Personally, I would be fine if someone wanted to use Craft to "reforge" a weapon into a masterwork weapon. It doesn't hurt anything mechanically to let it happen, and it makes the player happy, so....)
Stephen did most of the dev work on that (I was busy working on the Beginner Box) so he'll have to answer that.
(Personally, I would be fine if someone wanted to use Craft to "reforge" a weapon into a masterwork weapon. It doesn't hurt anything mechanically to let it happen, and it makes the player happy, so....)
+1
|
|
+1Stephen did most of the dev work on that (I was busy working on the Beginner Box) so he'll have to answer that.
(Personally, I would be fine if someone wanted to use Craft to "reforge" a weapon into a masterwork weapon. It doesn't hurt anything mechanically to let it happen, and it makes the player happy, so....)
+2!
|
|
In fact, saying they have to be bought in a store does far more to make the world less coherent. How is it that the shopkeep can obtain these materials but a 20th level wizard pc cannot? Certainly if the 3rd level adept running the apothacary can pick up newts tails and dragon horn dust to make a +1 sword, a party of adventures ought to be able to figure out a way to scrounge some up somewhere no?
To cite an example from a novel about making a magic mirror "the wax form mold should come bees living on the Caucasus slopes where Prometheus is chained".
Time consuming to gather and transport: yes.Adventure worthy: no.
Most of the stuff used in enchanting items should have that kind of fluff.
To make another example:
"The water used should be purified by concentrating the solar rays on a distiller and gathering only the drops that are produced when the sun is at its apogee."
Most of the time the problem for that kind of ingredients should be that they require exacting and long processes to processes to gather.
Not that they require to slay special beasts.
Generally the 20th level wizard will not bother spending the time to prepare the easy to get but time consuming ingredients. It can be a DC 10 alchemy check to prepare them, but with the current rules it will require ages before you produce the equivalent of 1.000 gp in components.
Making so that part of the treasure the player gather is the in the form of the monster body pieces that can be sold to apothecaries (or used to enchant stuff) will be a nice role playing addition and a good change from "the monster has X gp in coins and a +1 shield in its stomach". It will make some skill more useful too (survival or some craft to gather the pelt of a monster without damaging it, for example), the problem is that it will require more bookkeeping. Not all players will like that.
|
|
Stephen did most of the dev work on that (I was busy working on the Beginner Box) so he'll have to answer that.
(Personally, I would be fine if someone wanted to use Craft to "reforge" a weapon into a masterwork weapon. It doesn't hurt anything mechanically to let it happen, and it makes the player happy, so....)
Sometime we fixate too much on the "blade" aspect of the weapon when we think masterwork.
A proper balance for the weapon, using shark skin instead of common leather to get a more solid grip and so on can be as important as the quality of the striking part.So allowing a normal weapon to be upgraded to masterwork don't seem so strange.
Fantasy literature and legends are full of reforged blades and the heroes generally are still treating the "new" weapon like it was the old one.
|
|
Then getting a masterwork weapon isn't any help regardless, grandpas masterwork glaive will just be obsolete a level or two later.
My point was more that I'd accepted that as a lost battle. I see where you're coming from, but to allow the weapon to be endlessly re-forged/upgraded while maintaining the pretence that it's still the same weapon leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We can take this to a further level of absurdity - "Why can't I re-forge my Heirloom Long Sword as a Bastard Sword, now I've taken EWP?"
Look at it from another perspective: if the heirloom weapon can be continually re-forged, the character has nothing to fear from Sunder, Disintegrate, whathaveyou - the character essentially has those bonuses, so long as they are using their 'own' weapon. But the number of times you'd use someone else's are minimal (leaving aside the very sensible 'golf bag' approach).
|
|
Then what about this story:
"You call than an heirloom? It's a piece of junk!" :)
Sean
That was the flavour I was afraid of! ;o)
For me that the weapon was one that the PC would keep with him or herself and upgrade as the PC grew was half the appeal.
So your earlier idea of a slightly damaged masterwork weapon that can be fixed and thus able to grow with it's wielder sorts that nicely!
The problem of what to do with significant items or even animal companions in the story of a (fast) levelling PC has been perennial...... I always liked the way heirloom weapon and the PFRPG enchanting system was a fast an dirty way to avoid having a golf bag of now obsolete 'one true blades'. Or giving the PC Excalibur/ Stormbringer on day one and having it's powers contrive to emerge each level
Growing up on AD&D where enchanting anything was far too much trouble.....+1 ring sir? Well begin with the tears of a ghost and then it gets tricky..... It took me while to embrace easier item creation but the limited level of availability in for instance PFS play strikes me as pretty good.
TTFN
William
Heirloom Weapon: You start with a MW Weapon. You gain a +1 trait bonus to CMD and CMB when using this weapon to perform maneuvers it is capable of performing due to familiarity with the weapon. You must have proficiency with the weapon to gain this bonus.Give the option of the +1 to CMB/CMD or proficiency with that particular weapon, and that would be the best one I've seen thus far. It allows for a variety of builds not currently possible at level 1, if at all, but is otherwise still mostly in line with the other traits. It is still one of the more powerful ones, but that doesn't bother me, as the limitation to a single weapon tends to balance that out.
I would give proficiency with that particular type of weapon. From a pseudo-realism standpoint I can't see a person learning to wield a longsword and then being unable to wield any longsword because they lost that particular one. Doesn't make sense. If you learn to wield a knife, you can wield any knife even you learned using your grandpa's special knife he used in the battle Durkon the Dark Lord.
So maybe I do this:
Heirloom Weapon: You start with a MW Weapon. You gain one of the following benefits:
1. Proficiency with that type of weapon aka longsword, longspeark, or even an exotic weapon.
2. If you are already proficient from a source other than this trait, you gain a +1 trait bonus to CMD and CMB when using this weapon to perform maneuvers it is capable of performing due to familiarity with the weapon.
|
|
So maybe I do this:Heirloom Weapon: You start with a MW Weapon. You gain one of the following benefits:
1. Proficiency with that type of weapon aka longsword, longspear, or even an exotic weapon.
2. If you are already proficient from a source other than this trait, you gain a +1 trait bonus to CMD and CMB when using this weapon to perform maneuvers it is capable of performing due to familiarity with the weapon.
1: Free 300 gold for masterwork
2: Free Feat3: A normal trait level bonus
That's just as broken as it was before.
The main thing is, this trait was horribly broken as it was. It quickly became the go-to trait, with builds built around it. That's the first indication that something was wrong. With the changes, it is now about average with all the other traits, not the best, and not the worst. It was never going to be pretty with the fix, and those that built characters around it will be doubly upset.
I might be on my own here, but I firmly believe the following:
TRAITS WERE DESIGNED TO BE BUILT AROUND.
There.
I said it.
We all talk about character back stories etc, Traits were a way of giving those bits of back story a little meaningful bite. They added a bit of crunch to the flavour, and the basis on which excellent 'characters' could be built (as opposed to nameless statsblocks).
If a player said "I want to take this heirloom weapon of my fallen fathers and commit to a build with it going forward and through the campaign" then I have no problem with him building his character around the weapon and spending all his free money from thios point forward building on it.
I admit, like anything, some people are going to take it to extremes, but we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Now we have one more ho-hum meaningless trait instead of potential RP gold, good for both player AND gm.
Stupid.
|
|
The thing is, it has the exact same RP potential. It lost the huge mechanical advantage. THAT'S what the moaning is about, not loss of RP value. People built their characters around the trait with the mechanical benefits being the primary draw (Weapon Prof, Attack bonus, free weapon). Now, since it's on par with an average trait, we see how inportant the RP part of it was in relation to the mechanics
Reading and re-reading the new trait, it seems excessively nerfed.
Yes, the original trait was pretty clearly overpowered, but this seems a little too weak.
It can be taken away, and is overly focused on that specific -hard to improve- item.
|
|
I might be on my own here, but I firmly believe the following:
TRAITS WERE DESIGNED TO BE BUILT AROUND.
There.
I said it.
We all talk about character back stories etc, Traits were a way of giving those bits of back story a little meaningful bite. They added a bit of crunch to the flavour, and the basis on which excellent 'characters' could be built (as opposed to nameless statsblocks).
I think it's backward. You build the background, and choose the traits to flesh out the background. You start with the story of carrying the family sword, and then choose Heirloom Weapon trait because of that.
Then it's a trait.
To say, "Hey, I like the crunch of Heirloom Weapon," and then think about how that means there's a family sword you're carrying is backward.
Now, I have no problem with starting with the concept, finding a trait that matches the crunch you're looking for, and moving forward, but a lot of people were starting with Heirloom Weapon, and designing the concept from there. It's no longer a trait at that point, it's a central feature.
I once had to deal with a player that was trying to twist the rules in as many ways as possible to start at first level with a mithril weapon, and keeping the Heirloom Weapon bonus on it. Wondering if he could just get a 300gp credit (no, it gives the masterwork quality, not 300gp), wondering if he could start with a steel weapon and have it reforged as mithril later (far from straightforward--you can't just ask a smith to remake the weapon as mithril because it's not the family weapon anymore), anything. I even showed him one way to do it: grab Rich Parents, buy a mithril weapon with a weight of 1lb or less, and then declare that the Heirloom Weapon. Of course, though, that wasn't good enough because he didn't want a dagger or somesuch. All this time, not a word about the class, the race, the history, nothing. It was start with the Heirloom Weapon, and build from there. That's fine in some campaigns, but not all.
I think this fix was done terribly. Heirloom Weapon did have more value than other traits and needed to be tone down, but these changes really tear out the meaning of "heirloom".
I'm going to house rule a different fix for my campaign, but I am sad that this is the official version.
What I plan to do is to remove the +1 trait bonus on attack rolls and remove the automatic proficiency with the weapon. Instead, you get a +2 trait bonus to CMD vs. disarm, sunder, and steal attempts when you are wielding it or it is the target of the maneuver. The gp cost of magical enhancements to the heirloom weapon is reduced by 5%. You also get the weapon for free.
* It's an heirloom weapon, meaning that it has been passed down in your family. That doesn't mean you know how to use it, just that it's been in your family for generations. And if it's in your family, why do you still have to pay? (Is your parent that much of a cheapskate?)
* Getting automatic bonuses to use it does not make sense. And why that specific weapon? How is an heirloom longsword used differently compared to another masterwork longsword?
* It's masterwork because an heirloom should be built to last, and should be significant. And it can be exotic.
* Because it's your heirloom, you are extra careful not to lose it or break it.
* Because it has been passed down in your family for generations, the weapon has legacy. This legacy gives it a strong potential for magical enhancements, making it easier to enchant it.
|
I might be on my own here, but I firmly believe the following:
TRAITS WERE DESIGNED TO BE BUILT AROUND.
It is not possible for this to be true. In fact, can you think of another trait that "defines" a character? Traits tend to be things like +1 to a save or skill. Some even give you a skill as a class skill (though note that there are quite a few skills that you can't get as a class skill.) Also note that this is simply a +3 to a skill (and no increase at 10 ranks in the skill, unlike Skill Focus). Some even give a +2 or +3 to a skill for specific purposes. Without any of these the character would be the same. They're quirks. Not character builds unto themselves.
An heirloom weapon is one that is passed down through generations of a family, correct?
Could a monk grab the +2 to combat maneuvers with his unarmed strikes then? His genes were passed down to him and are the reason his fists were able to stand up to the years of training it took to make himself into a living weapon after all.
|
|
The thing is, it has the exact same RP potential. It lost the huge mechanical advantage. THAT'S what the moaning is about, not loss of RP value. People built their characters around the trait with the mechanical benefits being the primary draw (Weapon Prof, Attack bonus, free weapon). Now, since it's on par with an average trait, we see how inportant the RP part of it was in relation to the mechanics
It would be fulsome to suggest that the almost total dismantling of the mechanical benefits will not have annoyed those people who are currently benefiting from them. To suggest that the RP side of things is just being used as a post hoc rationalisation is rather unfair.
One basic idea behind an heirloom weapon IMHO is that it allows someone who might not be able to wield a particular weapon type normally to be able to do so with this single example from first level and because the exception applies only to the specific weapon the mechanics and RP complement each other perfectly as the player jealously guards and enhances this mechanically unique resource while the PC does the same to a precious family treasure.
I always felt the +1 should only apply if the owner was proficient otherwise proficiency was sufficient. Equally if you are going down a martial route you will need the proficiencies to get the foci and specialitions. By which time you will have no use for a non masterwork weapon anyway.
I do like the idea that is starts of as a worn out MW but for the cost of a normal MW version it get's upgraded thus allowing enchantment. I am not sure who would choose the current version and a trait almost no one needs is as bad as one that almost everyone wants.
W