Yes; if you're proficient, you shouldn't have non-proficiency penalties.
I'd rule it out of existence honestly.
At best, it should give *just* the masterwork weapon. Or a +1 when wielding it (but no proficiency). Or proficiency. All of those are about the "half feat" that a trait is supposed to be worth.
Two of the three if you're really generous.
The proficiency granted by the trait only applies to that specific weapon... not the type of weapon. If ever it is lost or destroyed the player is out a trait.
I guess it's best to say that it's been heavily debated, but if allowed as written, yes, the trait grants all that, no penalties for any weapon.
Remember that you only have proficiency and the +1 with that particular weapon.
You get a Masterwork weapon. Nice. That's 300 gp. What's a trait worth? Rich is worth 900gp
You get a +1 bonus. Nice. That could be worth a feat, but it's only one weapon. If there were only 6 of these weapons in the world it would be 1/6 of a feat. Ditto for free Prof.
If you lose or break this weapon, you get NOTHING. It's like taking a trait with hit points. It can die. If you were fortunate enough to enchant it, you can bring it back with a second level spell, unless you enchanted it too much, then you need an epic caster.
The very real possibility of losing this trait balances out any slight advantages it might have early game.
You get a Masterwork weapon. Nice. That's 300 gp. What's a trait worth? Rich is worth 900gp
You get a +1 bonus. Nice. That could be worth a feat, but it's only one weapon. If there were only 6 of these weapons in the world it would be 1/6 of a feat. Ditto for free Prof.
If you lose or break this weapon, you get NOTHING. It's like taking a trait with hit points. It can die. If you were fortunate enough to enchant it, you can bring it back with a second level spell, unless you enchanted it too much, then you need an epic caster.
The very real possibility of losing this trait balances out any slight advantages it might have early game.
This.
I think people who a worried about Heirloom weapon being overpowered and gamebreaking have to remember that if the player chooses this trait, he is stuck with ONE particular weapon for all of his 20 levels. He not only has to take extremely good care of it, he also has to spend the gold to enchant it and so on. No picking up a nice, enchanted falcata that an enemy happens to drop and leave grandpappy's old dented blade by to roadside.
In my view, this trait can go a very long way to encourage roleplay, and discourage the shopping-mart mentality some players have towards equipment and weapons.
You'll see an official revision to this trait soon.
How soon exactly? Very curious since this characters main weapon is used through this trait...
|
The only complaint I have about the trait as written is it allows you to take an exotic weapon proficiency, normally a feat, as a trait.
Which is understandable, but its just like the Half -elf's new ability to gain weapon proficiency by giving up skill focus...MEh, if anything it just allows other races to pick up a weapon while a race allows you to know ALLL weapons of that type... They can just utterly waist it if the weapon breaks...which is more possible that you losing a feat.
You'll see an official revision to this trait soon.
One way I see to 'fix' the trait is to state the weapon cannot be enchanted, do not want to risk ruining the family heirloom. Or stating that only the character that has the trait can enchant the item, since he would not risk anybody else enchanting the item.
This stops people from getting a bonus +1 to hit via the trait bonus at higher levels with their awesome magic weapon.
The trait does need some TLC though.
I have a character that took heirloom weapon as a trait in my Kingmaker campaign. I just went with it was written and advised the player that he was only proficient with this weapon that had been passed down. So if he aimed to keep it he would need to find means to have it enchanted along the way. While a bit on the powerful side, I don't see it as game breaking for our campaign.
I'm glad it's going to be revised. If I were running a campaign, I'd allow it but without the +1 trait bonuses on attacks.
And Rich Parents is definitely not permitted in my campaign unless there's a really good background for it.
|
My personal house-rule:
Heirloom Weapon (Trait) - Someone with this trait only receives the +1 to their attack roll if they actually have Proficiency with the weapon.
----
So let's take two characters, A and B. A has proficiency with longswords, B does not. When taking this trait, they both can get a Masterwork longsword and use it as if they had proficiency (not that A needs it). A, since he already had Proficiency, gets the +1 to attack rolls. B does not get this, he just gets the fake Proficiency (which is still a +4 improvement, +5 if you include the masterwork bonus).
Let's take a moment to look at what this trait should do.
It's an "Heirloom" passed down in your family. Ideally your character should want to pass it down to his or her child. Ideally this should be the only weapon you wield for the majority if not all of a campaign. Does anyone disagree so far?
Since you will eventually want a magic item, unless you intend to discard your family heirloom, it must be able to be enchanted, which means it must be masterwork. A masterwork weapon at creation isn't that big a deal. Half your characters will have one before reaching second level, and the other half shorty thereafter. This will give the character an advantage for maybe 2 sessions. This trait still needs more. OK?
The +1 bonus to hit is huge at first level, however, Weapon Focus gives you the same bonus. The trait only gives it to 1 weapon, which is restrictive. You can't switch to that mega-awesome sword you just found. You have to sell it and lose half its value. The trait also doesn't satisfy any of the pre-reqs weapon focus does. This is definitely worth less than a feat, but is it worth less than half? If not the +1 to hit, another advantage is needed that applies only to this weapon.
The free prof. is nice but worth less than +1 to hit. After all, what if you're already proficient with the weapon? I think this is the one most players have a problem with, it's also the least valuable of the three.
Overall, I think that many underestimate the inherent disadvantage of putting all your trait eggs in one basket. This weapon should mean the world to the character, not only for sentimental RP reasons, but also because if he loses it, he's out a trait. I think it's OK to make this trait a little better than the others because of how restrictive it is.
My personal house-rule:
Heirloom Weapon (Trait) - Someone with this trait only receives the +1 to their attack roll if they actually have Proficiency with the weapon.
----
So let's take two characters, A and B. A has proficiency with longswords, B does not. When taking this trait, they both can get a Masterwork longsword and use it as if they had proficiency (not that A needs it). A, since he already had Proficiency, gets the +1 to attack rolls. B does not get this, he just gets the fake Proficiency (which is still a +4 improvement, +5 if you include the masterwork bonus).
This is the best fix I've seen. This puts prof. and non prof. users on even ground.
While the fighter might just happen to find a substantially better greatsword than he started with (a +3 one, for instance), instead of the Greatsword he spent an heirloom trait on, and probably weapon focus...
Wait, did I say Weapon Focus? What if he had found a +3 *greataxe* instead? He'd still use it. It's better. But long term, since he invested feats and can't change them, he'll eventually get that sword up to par.
The issue isn't that the DM could drop acid onto his weapon and he's out a trait. The issue is that, baseline, this trait is much better than all the other traits in general- and that also, it's frequently better than a feat.
As written, you can go from "I don't know how to use a Falcata, it's at -4" to "This one was handed down, it's got a +1 enhancement bonus to hit and a +1 trait bonus to hit". That trait bonus only goes away if you lose the weapon or it is destroyed- a possible event for later, but it doesn't change the argument at 1st level. Seriously, other traits are like "you can use your wisdom modifier to climb or stealth" and "you always know true north".
Maybe you were gonna use a Waraxe, 1d8 x3? Now you have a Falcata, 1d8, 19-20 x3, with a +2 when wielding it. That is a rather lot for a feat- at first level, it looks like you stumbled upon Improved Critical, Weapon Focus, and something else to make it masterwork.
So Heirloom Weapon is broken if you use it with a broken weapon. Got it.
|
If your DM goes out of the way to bork up your heirloom weapon, that's rather mean spirited of him. While there are weapon-destroying things in the game, they don't normally just bust out of the woodwork and eat your longsword, there's usually some player skill involved.
Note that while it's overpowered as a trait, it's not campaign destroying, such as "cast wish 1/day" would be before about 15th level. It's just imbalanced, hence the discussion.
Hence why overpowered and not broken :P . But honestly this is a trait I ALWAYS take...which I guess shows how good it is.
|
|
I gave this trait some more thought:
In comparison to other traits, it is fairly powerful. Will it upset the game balance? Not really. If it was only available to certain players and not everyone, then yes it would not be fair. Honestly, no matter how much punishment the heirloom weapon takes, unless it is stolen, disintegrated, or lost down a chasm or overboard at sea, you can repair it fairly easily with magic.
By 2nd level, players should have a masterwork weapon, or have the money to spend to get one, so nothing OP there. By 3rd level, you could take the exotic weapon proficiency, or weapon focus (which applies to all weapons of a type), so nothing OP there. Yes, its a quick way to give the player several combat boons, but nothing that should imbalance the game mechanically, even if they choose falcata.
I remembered that the entire point of traits was to add flavor to the character's backstory, along with a little mechanical benefit. If a character selects heirloom weapon, they or the GM should write up a short history of it in the characters family. This is an item the character should be willing to go on a quest to fix or recover if something happens to it. In some ways, it should be considered the raw material for a legacy weapon in the making. If this much emphasis is placed on the heirloom, the character's story, personality, and drive has been expanded that much more. Trait mission accomplished.
As a GM, I would kindly request that other GMs not punish the player for taking this trait by targeting their weapon on a regular basis. Yes its okay to go this route a little, but certainly not right off the bat. Instead of trying to destroy or have it stolen, perhaps make the weapon only go to the firstborn heir, who then also has social obligations either to the family or their alliances to comply with if they wish to keep their status, and the heirloom. If their integrity comes into question, maybe that affects their heir status as well, etc. This way, it gives opportunity for RPing, allows the player to have some control over what happens, and adds to the trait rather than detracting from it.
I think it depends A LOT on the campaign and the players. Last time I played a melee character (I mostly play spellcasters), I lost my battleaxe thrice over the course of four levels.
First time - Sundered by an orc. None of the characters had mending, but I guess if this was a heirloom weapon I would have kept the pieces and got it fixed after the adventure.
Second time - My new masterwork battleaxe (taken from the orc in question >:)) was lost as I was drowning and needed to loose weight (yay! correct spelling for once!) to be able to swim. It was in my stuffed in my backpack together with my armor, so I lost about everything I had. I don't see how I could've saved a heirloom weapon there.
Third time - We were captured by Lord Douchebag and stripped of our possessions. We managed to escape but weren't able to get our stuff back. If it was a heirloom weapon, I guess we could have tried to get it back (would've been a great adventure hook), but I would've been without it for that whole quest.
Now, I realize there's unusually harsh item destruction going on in our games, which could have to do with playing a bit more "gritty" than the average game, all I'm saying is that the heirloom weapon isn't necessarily there for you, always.
-----
That said, I think the trait might be a little too good; I'd say that instead of granting proficiency, it should halve the non-proficiency penalties. That way:
- An non-proficient wielder have the penalties and bonuses even out. What he gets from the trait is more or less "free proficiency" in the weapon in question.
- A proficient wielder gets a free masterwork weapon and a +1 bonus to that specific weapon in question.
That seems just about the right power level, IMO. If the +1 bonus was lacking, the trait would be too front-loaded. Now there's a reason for a fighter to take heirloom weapon for a longsword, and not just a falcata or bastard sword.
To be honest, I don't see this trait as broken. It's too dependent on a single weapon that is too vulnerable to being damaged or lost. It's a cheap way for a character to get a martial (if they are not a fighting class) or exotic weapon proficiency, with a bit of an edge.
Would I change this feat? Yes, I'd change the benefit to include proficiency with all weapons of that type (weapon proficiency is very expensive as a feat anyway) and remove the +1 bonus. But I'd be interested to see how the trait is changed.
|
|
The issue with this trait is that it's HORRIBLE...period.
1) player has weapon...it's overpowered as a trait.
2) DM ruins the weapon because the trait is overpowered...now the player is cheated of a trait.
Yeah not seeing the fun here....
I haven't found Heirloom Weapon to be all that overpowered in my experience with it. So far I've had three players pick it for their PC:
1.) A bard/detective used it to get a sword cane.
2.) A dwarven wizard used it to get a waraxe
3.) A rogue/swashbuckler used it to get a rapier
In each case the net +2 bonus to hit has been a nice but hardly overwhelming boost for characters with less than full bab and low strengths. It was also a bonus that became less and less of a deal as the character gained levels.
Remember we keep saying "Weapon Focus"- but in fact, it's a bonus that stacks with weapon focus.
Anyway, I await the updated version.
And Reactionary stacks with Improved Initiative. What's your point? Improved Initiative has a easy multiplier to halve. Weapon Focus doesn't, so they limited it another way. Not to mention that Improved Initiative is a much better feat that Weapon Focus to begin with.
I just hope they don't "fix" it like they did the spiked chain. Take something that was arguably a little too good and make it unarguably the worst trait to take. (ex. An heirloom weapon that isn't masterwork is worthless, an heirloom weapon that is only masterwork is worthless the game session after you take it)
This is kinda like the old polymorph issue IMHO. Yes, it CAN be abused, but only if the GM allows it. We still have rule 0, and the power of "No!"
Put some logic armor on it. If it doesn't make perfect sense, you don't get to take it, and if it is an obvious grab for an exotic super-weapon (Falcata, Great Falchion etc), go "NO!". My samurai-style paladin inherited his MW Katana, which he still uses 2handed. He COULD have wielded a greatsword, a great falchion, or a sleugh of better weapons, but katana made SENSE. He doesn't even wield it one-handed, negating the exotic weapon proficiency side of it. Why? Because I dislike large amounts of optimization-cheese as a GM, I prefer not to fork it out as a player.
If your player can't answer why their dad wielded a large-sized great falchion in 30 seconds, just say "No!"
Tons of traits that are equally/more broke in my mind: First and most relevant example? "Sword Scion" in Kingmaker Player Guide; Flat +1 to hit and CMB (IE: BETTER than Weapon Focus) with any longsword or aldori dueling sword? Oh yeah, you also get one for free.
Heirloom Weapon is perfectly fine.
It does not give you Exotic Weapon Proficiency. If you have an heirloom falcata, you cannot take Weapon Focus: Falcata (or any other similar choose-a-weapon-type feat) unless you also take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Falcata. Why? Because you are not proficient with falcatas. You are proficient with Great Grandpappy Bob's sword, which happens to be a falcata. Generous DMs might allow you to take Weapon Focus: Great Grandpappy Bob's Sword, but that's house rules.
Heirloom Weapon is perfectly fine.
It does not give you Exotic Weapon Proficiency. If you have an heirloom falcata, you cannot take Weapon Focus: Falcata (or any other similar choose-a-weapon-type feat) unless you also take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Falcata. Why? Because you are not proficient with falcatas. You are proficient with Great Grandpappy Bob's sword, which happens to be a falcata. Generous DMs might allow you to take Weapon Focus: Great Grandpappy Bob's Sword, but that's house rules.
In other words, you really need the weapon proficiency anyway to get the most out of it.
This is kinda like the old polymorph issue IMHO. Yes, it CAN be abused, but only if the GM allows it. We still have rule 0, and the power of "No!"
Put some logic armor on it. If it doesn't make perfect sense, you don't get to take it, and if it is an obvious grab for an exotic super-weapon (Falcata, Great Falchion etc), go "NO!". My samurai-style paladin inherited his MW Katana, which he still uses 2handed. He COULD have wielded a greatsword, a great falchion, or a sleugh of better weapons, but katana made SENSE. He doesn't even wield it one-handed, negating the exotic weapon proficiency side of it. Why? Because I dislike large amounts of optimization-cheese as a GM, I prefer not to fork it out as a player.
If your player can't answer why their dad wielded a large-sized great falchion in 30 seconds, just say "No!"
Tons of traits that are equally/more broke in my mind: First and most relevant example? "Sword Scion" in Kingmaker Player Guide; Flat +1 to hit and CMB (IE: BETTER than Weapon Focus) with any longsword or aldori dueling sword? Oh yeah, you also get one for free.
FYI, weapon focus does the same thing to CMB it's just not explained.
I'd allow it but without the +1 trait bonuses on attacks.
That was my thought as well. Masterwork already gives a +1 attack, the +1 trait bonus is excessive IMO. A trait shouldn't grant a +2 bonus, which is essentially what this one does.
The proficiency specifications lead to complications later with feat trees, as Zurai pointed out, being proficient with THAT weapon type would just be tons easier. This way if they replace the weapon with a better one later they haven't lost a feat, only a masterwork weapon that served it's purpose and provided some early RP.
I'd allow it but without the +1 trait bonuses on attacks.That was my thought as well. Masterwork already gives a +1 attack, the +1 trait bonus is excessive IMO. A trait shouldn't grant a +2 bonus, which is essentially what this one does.
The proficiency specifications lead to complications later with feat trees, as Zurai pointed out, being proficient with THAT weapon type would just be tons easier. This way if they replace the weapon with a better one later they haven't lost a feat, only a masterwork weapon that served it's purpose and provided some early RP.
So, you're saying that to balance the trait, we should remake it into a copy of the whole martial/exotic weapons feat, with a free masterwork weapon thrown in? You realize how much more powerful that would be?
And the very point of the trait is that you don't replace the weapon. That's why it has to be masterwork, so it can be enchanted.
So, you're saying that to balance the trait, we should remake it into a copy of the whole martial/exotic weapons feat, with a free masterwork weapon thrown in? You realize how much more powerful that would be?
I never said anything about balance, only simplicity and removal of the problematic nature that is DMs who like to screw players by sundering 'specific' items.
The proficiency & the +1 attack bonus are BOTH technically FEATS, and that's without giving a player a 300gp item. We would NOT see this trait in our games, period.
So, you're saying that to balance the trait, we should remake it into a copy of the whole martial/exotic weapons feat, with a free masterwork weapon thrown in? You realize how much more powerful that would be?I never said anything about balance, only simplicity and removal of the problematic nature that is DMs who like to screw players by sundering 'specific' items. The proficiency portion of the trait IS a feat unto itself, we would not see this trait in our games, period.
No, the proficiency isn't a feat in itself, because a feat gives proficiency with a weapon type and qualifies the character for weapon focus. No combat character will use this trait without also getting the proficiency feat. I could see it being used for non-combat characters like wizards who wants a trick up their sleeve, but the fighter, rogue or ranger will still have to take the proficiency feat (unless choosing a martial or simple heirloom weapon).
EDIT: And if you think the trait is so powerful that you would not use it, why do you propose a fix that makes it far more powerful?
And if you think the trait is so powerful that you would not use it, why do you propose a fix that makes it far more powerful?
Stop trying put words in my mouth... I never said I would NOT use it, I said "we would not see this trait in our games".
|
|
Hmm... my wizard with his heirloom longbow suddenly hits as often as the fighter with a regular longsword, and does only slightly less damage, from range... *and* has full spells. Who needs a magus, just use this trait! ;)
The balance of "only with this weapon" is MEANINGLESS unless the GM is willing to sunder it or otherwise destroy the weapon - if they won't, then it's two free feats (proficiency and weapon focus-like bonus) for the cost of a trait. Now, if your game is such that giving every player +2 with their favorite weapon isn't a big deal, you might not care.
In my experience, the only players who don't take this trait are the ones who haven't heard about it yet.
Yes, it is stronger than all the other combat based traits, but it is hardly game breaking. It has the most effect at low levels, then begins to scale down. Zurai made a good point that you can't apply any weapon feats to it alone. No focus, no specialization, no improved critical.
I'm still liking the reactive trait. +2 Init isn't a bad thing ever. For most my wizards and what not I would rather have the trait that grants a +1 to fort saves. I'm very fond of the ACP lowering trait for bards too.
All in all there are still good choices beyond this trait especially if you have GM's like in my area that don't mind destroying equipment (and I certainly don't mind doing so).
I'd allow it but without the +1 trait bonuses on attacks.That was my thought as well. Masterwork already gives a +1 attack, the +1 trait bonus is excessive IMO. A trait shouldn't grant a +2 bonus, which is essentially what this one does.
The proficiency specifications lead to complications later with feat trees, as Zurai pointed out, being proficient with THAT weapon type would just be tons easier. This way if they replace the weapon with a better one later they haven't lost a feat, only a masterwork weapon that served it's purpose and provided some early RP.
The trait gives you a +2 bonus for about 2 days IRL. By this time, anyone who wants one should have a masterwork weapon. After that it drops to a more reasonable +1 bonus.
Hmm... my wizard with his heirloom longbow suddenly hits as often as the fighter with a regular longsword, and does only slightly less damage, from range... *and* has full spells. Who needs a magus, just use this trait! ;)
Uh, no. Your wizard will hit at (dex bonus + 2) for 1d8 damage. And if you were an elf wizard, you don't need the trait for a longbow anyway. The Fighter hits at (strength bonus + 1) for (1d8 + strength bonus) damage, and that's if he was stupid and didn't take Weapon Focus for one of his two to three level one feats. Since your wizard is absolutely going to have less dex than the fighter has strength, you're 100% incorrect. The fighter is going to hit more often and probably twice as hard. An 18 strength fighter vs a (very generous) 16 dex wizard is doing +6 to hit for 1d8+4 (avg 8.5) damage vs +5 to hit for 1d8 (avg 4.5) damage. If he took Power Attack for his other level 1 feat, the fighter hits at +5 for 1d8+6 (avg 10.5) damage. If he also took the heirloom weapon trait, he's hitting at +7 for 1d8+6 damage. This gap will widen very rapidly.
I'm sorry, but you're clearly not grasping the actual balance of the situation, or you have no actual experience with fighters in pathfinder.
Like Zurai said, and doubly so if you are using an Adventure Path, as Paizo are very generous in giving out really good weapons rather fast. In kingmaker you have the potential to find a +3 weapon at lv5, at which point you are stuck with your same MW stuff unless the cleric or wizard is kindly enough to take a feat to enchant stuff for you all.
Also; This weapon is a basic weapon. Not cold iron, not silver, and definitely not adamantite. For any character even remotely serious about combat, it grows obsolete unless you or someone else burns feats to enchant it. Or the GM is kind enough to let you have it enchanted by a third party magic-using NPC.
That balances it with ANY static trait that gives a bonus is a SURE bet, and will NEVER fail you, go obsolete or get stolen/destroyed.
Yes, it is real good at lv1, one of the best, but at lv6 it is most likely irrelevant unless you have an enchanter on your side, and at lv10 it makes absolutely no difference.
Examine some of the other traits that have no risk, and give insane powers:
- Finding Haleen from Legacy of Fire; +1 skillpoint and hp every level?
- Sword Scion from Kingmaker; Double weapon focus and a free sword?
- Well Dressed from Armory; +1 to 3 skills and one is a class skill, as long as you wear clothes easily obtained within lv2.
These are just a few examples off the top of my head. Someone who cares to look will likely find twice as many.