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.
Well, I have never seen anyone take this trait.
Ever.
I would consider it though, under two circumstances:
1) I have a fighter, and I want a signature weapon I want to be able to get that extra +1 to hit and damage on. In this case, it's just a masterwork weapon at first level (because I WILL take the feats for proficiency anyway) and it's one I get an extra +1 to hit and damage with. It's likely I'll always carry it, get it mended and then come back to it to get it enchanted whenever I can.
2) I have a non-fighting character, and I want them to have a decent fall-back weapon just in case. I'm not going to use it often, because I'm still squishy and have more important things to do in a fight, but it's a nice bit of flavour.
|
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! ;)
Maybe at first level. Possibly a little at second. After that the fighter is going to jump waaaay ahead in the physical combat field.
Plus, the wizard probably won't have the two feats to spend on Precise Shot, which means his/her accuracy will drop considerably (-4) as soon as the target enters melee combat.
Hmm, suddenly, I think proficiency with a single weapon should be a trait. Definitely for a single martial weapon, but IMHO, even exotic weapons aren't so badass that they're worth a whole feat.
Then Heirloom Weapon could lose proficiency, and add another trait, Weapon Proficiency or Use or the like.
|
|
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.
Well, I have never seen anyone take this trait.
Ever.
I would consider it though, under two circumstances:
1) I have a fighter, and I want a signature weapon I want to be able to get that extra +1 to hit and damage on. In this case, it's just a masterwork weapon at first level (because I WILL take the feats for proficiency anyway) and it's one I get an extra +1 to hit and damage with. It's likely I'll always carry it, get it mended and then come back to it to get it enchanted whenever I can.
2) I have a non-fighting character, and I want them to have a decent fall-back weapon just in case. I'm not going to use it often, because I'm still squishy and have more important things to do in a fight, but it's a nice bit of flavour.
I guess having a party enchanter always helps. I have never been in a game where the casters didn't craft so heirloom weapons traits are always taken when available in my circles. By entire parties even...which does get kinda annoying I admit.
A lot of people seem to be missing the roleplaying elements and story hooks that any player who takes this trait is giving the DM. An heirloom weapon means their are people in the character's background with certain expectations of what this character will do and power to enforce those expectations to at least some extent.
As far the proficiency is concerned, I don't see the issue; back in the days before mass production, having a particular weapon be just different enough other versions of that weapon to preclude a wider proficiency isn't very hard to justify.
The key is that is that trait is one of the best traits to kick start a player into role playing and background development; sure he took it for the masterwork weapon and the bonus, but in doing so, he just gave the DM at least half a dozen plot hooks. They don't even have to be "destroy the weapon" plot hooks; they could just as easily be "a family member or the community he came from needs help and they expect the character to fulfill his familial obligations" type of plot hook.
|
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.
I just started a Runelords AP with 7 players, each with 2 traits. There was a total of 2 heirloom weapon traits taken, the barbarian and the wizard each took it(With weapons they already have prof with even). It's hardly a required trait or something most will take. I think Reactionary is seen far more often. Personally, I would rather take a trait that will help my character through his whole career, not just low levels. Your wizard in that example is going to abandon using that weapon after level 3 or so, when a slight chance at 1d8 just isn't worth wasting a standard action. Unless he is planning on being an arcane archer or eldritch knight, it's a poor choice of a trait.
One a note about the post above, the barbarian took the trait and has a GREAT story concept behind it and a full description of how it looks, making it truly a unique weapon.
|
|
Well, Zurai, your mileage may vary, of course, but I think you've actually proved my point for me. Your fighter uses up his wad to get his +5 to hit, 1d10+6 damage. My wizard will hit only 5% less often, doing 1d8 from range, and still has both feats and full spellcasting. Personally, I like characters who aren't just one-trick ponies (even my fighters), so there's my bias here.
Of course, the fighter can do it too, to narrow the gap. Maybe we should just give everyone +2 and lower the monster challenge ratings another level.
And given that others have seen the same "everyone takes this trait" mentality that I have, and given that the Paizo staff are going to revise it based on its power level, I think I'm significantly less than 100% wrong. :)
While I agree this is room for revision in the trait, my concern is that the human tendency is to overreact and in trying to correct something, go so far in the solution that a new problem has been created, usually one directly opposite of the one that was just "solved." To their credit though, Paizo seems to do a good job of avoiding extremes in their corrections.
Well, Zurai, your mileage may vary, of course, but I think you've actually proved my point for me.
No, actually.
Your fighter uses up his wad to get his +5 to hit, 1d10+6 damage. My wizard will hit only 5% less often, doing 1d8 from range, and still has both feats and full spellcasting.
First, your wizard does not have two feats; he has one.
Second, let's assume both are attacking a CR 1 enemy. The bestiary states that a CR 1 enemy should have 12 AC. Your hypothetical absurdly high dex wizard with an heirloom longbow hits AC 12 61.75% of the time for 4.5 average damage and crits 3.25% of the time for 13.5 average damage, for a total expected damage of 3.2175. The bog-standard (except for weapon choice) fighter hits AC 12 63% of the time for 10.5 damage and crits 7% of the time for 21 damage, for a total expected damage of 8.085. 8.085 is over two and a half times as much damage as the wizard deals. Oh, and once anyone gets in melee range of the CR 1 enemy, the wizard's attack drops to a 42.75% chance to hit for 4.5 average damage and a 2.25% chance to crit for 13.5 average damage, for a whopping total of 2.2275 expected damage, less than 1/3 what the fighter's damage is.Since your original statement was that you could take a wizard and give him an heirloom longbow and he'd hit as often and almost as hard as a fighter, I'm quite safe in saying that you're 100% wrong.
Personally, I like characters who aren't just one-trick ponies (even my fighters), so there's my bias here.
Considering that fighters can only be one trick ponies, that's a red herring.
given that the Paizo staff are going to revise it based on its power level
That is not what was said. All that was said is that we would be seeing a new version of the trait. No reason was given for the change. Perhaps Paizo just feels that the trait needs to be more focused, rather than more or less powerful.
I would give have proficiency with one specific weapon as a trait.
That it's masterwork is another trait.
I might allow this with gnome illusionists who want proficiency with their racial clawhammer.
I want to point out that Mending and Make Whole work on mundane objects. So does Locate Object.
I haven't read the entire thread so I may have missed something.
I would give have proficiency with one specific weapon as a trait.
That it's masterwork is another trait.
Actually, a masterwork weapon is 1/3 of a trait. The benchmark for monetary value from a trait is 900 gold; masterwork weapons cost 1/3 that. On top of that, the value of having a masterwork weapon lasts for not even a full level; spending a permanent resource on an extremely temporary bonus is stupid.
Furthermore, proficiency with one specific weapon (rather than one specific weapon type) is considerably weaker than half of a feat. And, as already mentioned in this thread, Weapon Proficiency itself is worth about half a feat (even though it is a feat).
Traits are supposed to be half of a feat. Since Rich Parents is a trait for 900g, that means 900g is half of a feat. 300g is therefore 1/6 of a feat. I'll be generous and say that proficiency in a single unique weapon is worth 1/3 of a feat (IMO it's closer to 1/4 or 1/6 since it doesn't allow you to take any feats or use any items that require proficiency). That still leaves 1/6 of a feat to make the trait worth half a feat.
I'm really not interested in discussing Society play in the Rules forum for several reasons:
I have nothing against Society play, for the record, and I know that the reason Society's rules function the way they do is to support fair organized play. It's just that fair organized play has absolutely no relevance to the generic Pathfinder Rules Forum.
Then take proficiency with one specific weapon as a trait, then take inheritence as your other trait, and buy your weapon. You can afford masterwork, but hopefully not an actual magic weapon. Buy some healing potions with the leftover.
Then take proficiency with one specific weapon as a trait, then take inheritence as your other trait, and buy your weapon. You can afford masterwork, but hopefully not an actual magic weapon. Buy some healing potions with the leftover.
As I've already pointed out, proficiency with one specific weapon is way weaker than half of a feat. Proficiency with one type of weapon is roughly half a feat; proficiency with only a single unique weapon, without granting the ability to take Weapon Focus, Improved Critical, Melee Weapon Mastery, etc etc ad nauseum, is barely even worth mentioning in the same idea space as a feat.
Furthermore, Rich Parents is an extremely weak trait itself, because it provides basically no value past the first one or two levels. Pretty much every single other trait in the game provides a benefit that lasts your character's entire life.
I don't think all traits should have the same value as feats, or other traits, or monetary value. You are basically trying to convince other people, and not me. As I am not going to agree with you, you can stop repeating yourself.
In my experience, traits are freebees to make the game more playable, at low levels. It worked with this one guy who was threatening not to play because he didn't think he got enough point build points.
I don't think all traits should have the same value as feats, or other traits, or monetary value. You are basically trying to convince other people, and not me. As I am not going to agree with you, you can stop repeating yourself.
In my experience, traits are freebees to make the game more playable, at low levels. It worked with this one guy who was threatening not to play because he didn't think he got enough point build points.
The definition of a trait is half a feat. It's not opinion, it's established-by-Paizo fact. You can disagree with that all you want, but this is the Rules Forum, so what the rules say is what's important.
OK, I'm abadoning the Rules questions forum like I abandoned the General Discussion Forum because there is too much hate.
It's not hate. It's bluntness. This is a forum for the discussion of the rules. Discussion of changing the rules goes in a different forum.
OK, I'm abadoning the Rules questions forum like I abandoned the General Discussion Forum because there is too much hate.
It's not hate, Goth Guru, Zurai is simply right - a trait IS defined as half a feat in both the free download and the APG. Having a trait give you only a masterwork weapon is not strong enough, you can take Rich Parents and get three times the value. Having a trait give you proficiency with a weapon type is too much, because there is a feat for that (although I concede that I think a Martial Weapon Proficiency should apply to a whole group of martial weapons such as you get in fighter's weapon training). Yet not having proficiency with an heirloom weapon is silly, so it applies to the weapon specifically, not the type. Lastly, there has to be a reason for a fighter or martial character to use this weapon and not another ... so hence the +1 to hiot and damage. Now the latter I personally think is too much: I would make it just +1 damage, still useful to the fighter but not awesomely so.
If you run out of forums every time people disagree with you, and can back it up, you will soon run out of forums.
Now the latter I personally think is too much: I would make it just +1 damage, still useful to the fighter but not awesomely so.
That sounds pretty fair to me, for the record.
Also consider this; there is a huge amount of traits that grants you a class skill AND a +1, which amounts to a +4 bonus to a skill as long as it is not a class skill. That is MORE than skill focus until lv10. And barring multiclassing, it never goes obsolete, and stacks with skill focus.
Some traits also do things that you CANNOT replicate with feats or money alone. Like Armor Expert, which gives you a -1 to your armor check penalty. Half a fighter special ability (Armor Training) which stacks with the ability in question.
Not to mention situational traits that allow you to do things not even feats allows: Like Jungle Fighter, that allows you to move rather freely even in heavy jungle. Or one that allows you to charge while swimming.
Heirloom weapon is good for instant gratification, but barring magical intervention becomes LOST on level 5+ when you find magical weapons.
|
|
Also consider this; there is a huge amount of traits that grants you a class skill AND a +1, which amounts to a +4 bonus to a skill as long as it is not a class skill. That is MORE than skill focus until lv10. And barring multiclassing, it never goes obsolete, and stacks with skill focus.
Some traits also do things that you CANNOT replicate with feats or money alone. Like Armor Expert, which gives you a -1 to your armor check penalty. Half a fighter special ability (Armor Training) which stacks with the ability in question.
Not to mention situational traits that allow you to do things not even feats allows: Like Jungle Fighter, that allows you to move rather freely even in heavy jungle. Or one that allows you to charge while swimming.
Heirloom weapon is good for instant gratification, but barring magical intervention becomes LOST on level 5+ when you find magical weapons.
+1
Those are excellent points. So may other traits provide you with something more lasting and versatile than a single item or a chunk of money. Unless your games are 90% combat and 10% Roleplay, you're better off with something else
Also consider this; there is a huge amount of traits that grants you a class skill AND a +1, which amounts to a +4 bonus to a skill as long as it is not a class skill. That is MORE than skill focus until lv10. And barring multiclassing, it never goes obsolete, and stacks with skill focus.
Some traits also do things that you CANNOT replicate with feats or money alone. Like Armor Expert, which gives you a -1 to your armor check penalty. Half a fighter special ability (Armor Training) which stacks with the ability in question.
Not to mention situational traits that allow you to do things not even feats allows: Like Jungle Fighter, that allows you to move rather freely even in heavy jungle. Or one that allows you to charge while swimming.
Heirloom weapon is good for instant gratification, but barring magical intervention becomes LOST on level 5+ when you find magical weapons.
+1
Those are excellent points. So may other traits provide you with something more lasting and versatile than a single item or a chunk of money. Unless your games are 90% combat and 10% Roleplay, you're better off with something else
I think Heirloom Weapon is a great roleplaying hook. when building the only character I've made that took the trait, I didn't even know what the trait did when I decided I needed it, it just sounded like exactly the thing my character needed.
I agree that Heirloom Weapon is one of the better RP hook traits, too. Traits like Reactionary (the +2 Initiative trait) don't really offer a lot of stuff for the DM to manipulate. Heirloom Weapon, on the other hand, offers up all kinds of automatic background. For one thing, the PC had an ancestor with an iconic (if not overly powerful) weapon. Probably that ancestor was famous, at least locally. Alternately, the weapon is a valuable piece of family history. Either way, the family is established as something important to the PC, because he made sure to keep and cherish the heirloom. Even if the PC is an all-too-common orphan, the family can still be used as a plot hook (perhaps someone recognizes the PC because they knew the parents, etc).
My samurai-flavored paladin inherited his Katana (Bastard Sword), which was the sword used by the first samurai of his clan. It was broken and robbed of magic, but my paladin's ancestor fought with the broken sword and defeated his enemies, and as he died, the sword became a symbol of the clan's devotion to serve the people they lead, and stored in the family shrine. My paladin, 12 generations later, was made outcast due to his wish to restore ideals of good in a clan that did not handle the rise to power too well, and became obsessed with law, even at the cost of good. His grandmother understood that he was the first truly worthy of inheriting the first samurai's spirit, and magically mended the sword, giving it to him so that he might one day return to restore the original glory of the clan. The sword contains the spirit of his ancestors (summons them using Bonded Weapon as a paladin) and the first samurai's guidance lets him use the weapon in one hand if need be.
Well, I have never seen anyone take this trait.
Ever.
Except for the monk in the Rise of the Runelords game you're DMing, of course.
I feel the need to point out that "But but Exotic Weapon!" isn't a big deal.
Oh man, you get one of the weakest feats in the game for one specific item.
Not...really seeing the super awesome power, here.
What Heirloom Weapon does is take the "I want to be cool" feat tax connected to exotic weapons and turns it into a trait instead. It still sucks that you have to lose something in order to take a weapon you like which offers little to no mechanical benefit, but having to lose a trait is better then losing a feat.
I mean, EWP is basically a half-feat to begin with. You don't even get that.
|
|
I feel the need to point out that "But but Exotic Weapon!" isn't a big deal.
Oh man, you get one of the weakest feats in the game for one specific item.
Not...really seeing the super awesome power, here.
What Heirloom Weapon does is take the "I want to be cool" feat tax connected to exotic weapons and turns it into a trait instead. It still sucks that you have to lose something in order to take a weapon you like which offers little to no mechanical benefit, but having to lose a trait is better then losing a feat.
I mean, EWP is basically a half-feat to begin with. You don't even get that.
I agree totally. I think the whole martial/exotic weapon thing hasn't changed since 3.0 but really, really needs to.
For my home game, I changed Martial Weapon Proficiency so it gives you proficiency in an entire group of weapons instead of just one. I used the weapon groups from the fighter's Weapon Training ability as a base and went from there (I also pulled out my old 2nd edition Complete Fighter's Handbook, which introduced the idea of weapon group proficiencies, as a reference).
I also moved most of the "exotic" weapons over to the martial field (like the monk weapons and repeating crossbows). The only exotic weapons left are things like the bastard sword or dwarven waraxe, that are ok two-handed weapons that become excellent one-handed weapons if you spend a feat on them.
Heirloom weapon does not increase damage, only accuracy (bonus to hit)
but weapon proficiency itself should be a trait (for 1 weapon) or a feat (for an entire weapon group from simple to exotic)
as a fact, i beleive that all of the weapon specific feats should apply to entire weapon groups.
and that instead of classes getting predetermined proficiencies, they should get selections of weapon groups based on class.
every martial class should also have access to manuevers ala TOB. but the TOB classes should have access to every school (other classes would only get a handful based on steriotypical styles deemed class appropriate) and swordsages should have recieved adaptive style for free as a class ability off the bat.
I had gone to the weapon groups as presented in the Unearthed Arcana book for 3.5. When I switched to PF, I went with standard weapon lists, to make it easier. However, now that I'm familiar (at least more familiar) with the PF rules, I think I'll be going back to the weapon groups rules.
With that background, I think I'll allow heirloom weapon as follows in my games :
MW Weapon
+1 with that weapon
Proficiency with that type of weapon.
Of course, the standard 'Martial Weapon Proficiency' feat would be for a weapon group, not a single type of weapon, thus preserving the 1/2 feat = trait balance.
Honestly, I hate the way you have to be nickled and dimed to death to learn exotic weapons or even weapons. Getting 30 weapons for a single level dip into fighter, but burning a feat only gets you one? Insane, IMHO....
My samurai-flavored paladin inherited his Katana (Bastard Sword), which was the sword used by the first samurai of his clan. It was broken and robbed of magic, but my paladin's ancestor fought with the broken sword and defeated his enemies, and as he died, the sword became a symbol of the clan's devotion to serve the people they lead, and stored in the family shrine. My paladin, 12 generations later, was made outcast due to his wish to restore ideals of good in a clan that did not handle the rise to power too well, and became obsessed with law, even at the cost of good. His grandmother understood that he was the first truly worthy of inheriting the first samurai's spirit, and magically mended the sword, giving it to him so that he might one day return to restore the original glory of the clan. The sword contains the spirit of his ancestors (summons them using Bonded Weapon as a paladin) and the first samurai's guidance lets him use the weapon in one hand if need be.
That is an excellent example of making the trait and the class features blend together!
Except for the monk in the Rise of the Runelords game you're DMing, of course.Well, I have never seen anyone take this trait.
Ever.
Yes, but that was the very first time.
Honestly, I hate the way you have to be nickled and dimed to death to learn exotic weapons or even weapons. Getting 30 weapons for a single level dip into fighter, but burning a feat only gets you one? Insane, IMHO....
Agreed!
Traits should really have been left as background development tools giving social and some skill bonuses, as opposed to direct combat bonuses. Now they're just another must have in the plus column for so many.
Good thing it's easily remedied at one's home table.
|
|
Traits like Reactionary (the +2 Initiative trait) don't really offer a lot of stuff for the DM to manipulate.
Isn't reactionary the trait where the PC got beat up as a kid? At the very least there's 'what happened to the guys who beat up the PC?', who knew the PC was getting beaten, why or why didn't they intervene, can the PC remain calm under diplomatic circumstances, does the PC fear attack constantly, etc...
Traits like Reactionary (the +2 Initiative trait) don't really offer a lot of stuff for the DM to manipulate.Isn't reactionary the trait where the PC got beat up as a kid? At the very least there's 'what happened to the guys who beat up the PC?', who knew the PC was getting beaten, why or why didn't they intervene, can the PC remain calm under diplomatic circumstances, does the PC fear attack constantly, etc...
It offers some potential, but Heirloom Weapon guarantees that a certain number of hooks exist. A PC could write their Reactionary background such that there's really not much for the DM to go on; they can't do that with Heirloom Weapon.
|
|
It offers some potential, but Heirloom Weapon guarantees that a certain number of hooks exist. A PC could write their Reactionary background such that there's really not much for the DM to go on; they can't do that with Heirloom Weapon.
Please explain. Short of the character not having the reactionary trait I don't see how at least two of the above mentioned hooks (or many more possibilities) weren't viable.
Heirloom Weapon can be as generic as 'I found this weapon at a yard sale'.
It offers some potential, but Heirloom Weapon guarantees that a certain number of hooks exist. A PC could write their Reactionary background such that there's really not much for the DM to go on; they can't do that with Heirloom Weapon.Please explain. Short of the character not having the reactionary trait I don't see how at least two of the above mentioned hooks (or many more possibilities) weren't viable.
Sample Reactionary background that offers the DM basically nothing to go on (using shorthand and not using flowery language just to keep it short and sane):
"Jimbob was a wimpy kid. The other children always picked on him; he learned to be cautious as a result. That's why he was hiding in the basement when the orc raiders killed everyone in his village. Today he's grown past the point of jumping at his own shadow, but he still maintains his quick reactions from his past."
Ta-daa! No plot hooks (from the trait; there are the orc raiders, but those really aren't related to the Reactionary trait at all) for the DM, but still a perfectly valid Reactionary background. You can't do that with Heirloom Weapon because the weapon itself is a plot hook.
Heirloom Weapon can be as generic as 'I found this weapon at a yard sale'.
No, actually, it can't. I suggest you brush up on the definition of "heirloom".
The one thing I really like about the Traits is that it provides a bonus background development. That's far more valuable to me as an RPG player than the half-a-feat mechanical bonus. And as far as I can remember at this specific moment, it's the one thing that every Trait provides. Even Reactionary gives you something to work with in your character history if you want to work with it.
Anyway, I've actually been convinced that Heirloom Weapon is fine as it is. I think there is still room for 1st level balance concerns (like a ranger choosing a Composite Bow with a pull strength bonus) but overall the arguments comparing it to some of the other traits have persauded me. And I do love the potential for enhancing a character's background that it provides.
Granted, I've never actually chosen it for myself but I now think it's fine as is. And I'm really curious to see what Paizo's going to do to change it.
|
Would it help if the trait just worked for martial weapons? I see the trait mainly as a means for non-professional combattants to get access to a decent weapon, i.e. a Longbow for a rogue, cleric, or bard. You could leave away the +1 trait bonus and it would still do its job.
Of course, it still makes sense for a professional warrior to have his father's sword, but he wouldn't need to spend a trait to do this because he is already proficient with the weapons of his trade.
|
|
"Jimbob was a wimpy kid. The other children always picked on him; he learned to be cautious as a result. That's why he was hiding in the basement when the orc raiders killed everyone in his village. Today he's grown past the point of jumping at his own shadow, but he still maintains his quick reactions from his past."
Ta-daa! No plot hooks (from the trait; there are the orc raiders, but those really aren't related to the Reactionary trait at all) for the DM, but still a perfectly valid Reactionary background. You can't do that with Heirloom Weapon because the weapon itself is a plot hook.
Everyone in his village, that Jimbob knew of. Turns out Biff was out hunting, not because he was hungry, but because he likes to torture living things. Biff just found out Jimbob's alive and wants to relive the 'good old days'.
In Pathfinder unless you've disintegrated the corpse, gate the remains to another plane, and trap the soul, no one is truly dead.
No, actually, it can't. I suggest you brush up on the definition of "heirloom".
Well if you'll accept Wikipedia as a source... "In popular usage, an heirloom is something, perhaps an antique or some kind of jewelry, that has been passed down for generations through family members."
So, Biff went down to the Jimbob's yard sale and bought his heirloom.
Honestly traits are exactly as much as you want to invest in them.
No, actually, it can't. I suggest you brush up on the definition of "heirloom".Well if you'll accept Wikipedia as a source... "In popular usage, an heirloom is something, perhaps an antique or some kind of jewelry, that has been passed down for generations through family members."
So, Biff went down to the Jimbob's yard sale and bought his heirloom.
Then by definition it isn't an heirloom, and the trait does not apply. You cannot 'buy' an heirloom. An heirloom by the definition you have quoted is something passed through your family that you inherit. If you buy it at the yardsale and then pass it on to your kids and grandkids, then it becomes an heirloom, but until it's passed on in your family it doesn't count.
|
|
Then by definition it isn't an heirloom, and the trait does not apply. You cannot 'buy' an heirloom. An heirloom by the definition you have quoted is something passed through your family that you inherit.
Not according to Wikipedia, just has to have been passed down for generations 'through family members'. At no point do those family members have to be from your family.
But if you really want to confine it to family then Biff marries Jimbob's daughter Billyjean. Jimbob dies of natural causes, and Biff inherits a weapon he never knew about. At least at the yard sale Biff knew what he was getting.
Then by definition it isn't an heirloom, and the trait does not apply. You cannot 'buy' an heirloom. An heirloom by the definition you have quoted is something passed through your family that you inherit.Not according to Wikipedia, just has to have been passed down for generations 'through family members'. At no point do those family members have to be from your family.
Heirloom
–noun
1. a family possession handed down from generation to generation.
If you didn't inherit it, it's not an heirloom. If it gets sold, it is no longer an heirloom.
But if you really want to confine it to family then Biff marries Jimbob's daughter Billyjean. Jimbob dies of natural causes, and Biff inherits a weapon he never knew about. At least at the yard sale Biff knew what he was getting.
Congratulations - you just provided DM plot hooks with that:
1) Your character's wife's family is powerful and wealthy enough to have a masterwork weapon floating around that can be passed on to somebody who married into the family rather than to a blood relative, and your character has been involved in the family long enough to train with the weapon to gain proficiency with it.2) Your character is married, and probably has children too.
Everyone in his village, that Jimbob knew of. Turns out Biff was out hunting, not because he was hungry, but because he likes to torture living things. Biff just found out Jimbob's alive and wants to relive the 'good old days'.
In Pathfinder unless you've disintegrated the corpse, gate the remains to another plane, and trap the soul, no one is truly dead.
This is called "Changing the backstory" and you can do it to any backstory. It doesn't validate your point. In fact, that you had to change my background invalidates your point and validates mine.
Well if you'll accept Wikipedia as a source... "In popular usage, an heirloom is something, perhaps an antique or some kind of jewelry, that has been passed down for generations through family members."
This is called "being intentionally obtuse". If you actually read the article, you'll find that heirlooms traditionally aren't even allowed to be given outside the family via a will. Once it passes outside the family, it ceases to be an heirloom (unless and until the new family passes it down through a few generations).
|
|
Heirloom
–noun
1. a family possession handed down from generation to generation.
Yes, Jimbob's family, now I own it. My secondhand heirloom.
But if you really want to confine it to family then Biff marries Jimbob's daughter Billyjean. Jimbob dies of natural causes, and Biff inherits a weapon he never knew about. At least at the yard sale Biff knew what he was getting.
Congratulations
Not really, they were rubes who didn't know it was masterwork because it was in the attic for so long it was forgotten. Found it while looking for yard sale crap. Wife died at the hand of my new heirloom weapon after I told her 'see, it's harmless, couldn't hurt a fly'.
Again, traits are exactly as much work as you put into them, and nothing anyone says will make any one trait 'more RPer' than any other trait.
|
|
This is called "Changing the backstory" and you can do it to any backstory.
No, Jimbob at no point witnessed the wholesale slaughter of every last member of his village, he was in hiding.
This is called "being intentionally obtuse".
No, it's called being a rule lawyering prick. Which is the foundation of this particular forum. Kinda like debating if a sleeping person is actually unconscious or not.
Again, a trait is only as laden with plot hooks as engineered.
BTW the part I 'didn't' read applied to english law, not to the definition of the word. If you'll click the disambiguation link you'll see that the entry I chose was most pertinent to the situation.
CongratulationsNot really, they were rubes who didn't know it was masterwork because it was in the attic for so long it was forgotten. Found it while looking for yard sale crap. Wife died at the hand of my new heirloom weapon after I told her 'see, it's harmless, couldn't hurt a fly'.
So you murdered your wife with it! Even better background! I can have HUGE milleage with this, I can even get the weapon to carry a curse now! hmmm. Maybe it was locked away in that attic because they knew it carried a curse ... in any event, your character is on the run for murdering his wife, even if you didn't intend to that's what everyone thinks. If there are any of her family out there they will be after you for revenge and to take back the heirloom you have 'stiollen' from their family ...
Every attempt you are making to try and insist the heirloom doesn't have plot hooks is just creating more plot hooks - and better ones.
Again, traits are exactly as much work as you put into them, and nothing anyone says will make any one trait 'more RPer' than any other trait.
Some traits do not require background, or can have background that is free of hooks. Heirloom weapon is not one of them. While you are right in that traits do not intrinsically have or not have RP value, this particular one does have hooks that are intrinsic to it, while hooks can be written out of other traits you simply cannot do so for this one - your own attempts to do so are proving it.
This is called "being intentionally obtuse".No, it's called being a rule lawyering prick.
Either you are admitting to being a rules lawyering prick (which is not anything to be proud of), or you are making a personal attack with that statement which is uncalled for. In either case it totally devalues your arguments.
BTW the part I 'didn't' read applied to english law, not to the definition of the word. If you'll click the disambiguation link you'll see that the entry I chose was most pertinent to the situation.
No, it applies to the definition of 'heirloom' as something you inherit. You cannot get an heirloom any other way, if you do it ceases to be an heirloom. The fact that it is also a legal definition is neither here nor there.