In either case it totally devalues your arguments.It just appears to be the MO of the rules questions forum, I'll be avoiding it from now on unless I have a rules question that I believe won't devolve into 'ya-huh' and 'nuh-uh'
Then you're the second person to drop this thread after it's pointed out that they are wrong about their definitions. An heirloom is something you inherit, and that's all there is to it. You can play the trait another way in your games if you want, but that's a house-rule. Because it is inherited, it implies a background and history, and that gives the DM hooks if he wants to use them.
Nowhere in the Core Rulebook does it explicitly say that you have to go to the toilet after eating a lot, nor does it say that sex makes babies, nor does it say that a male is limited to ONE penis as opposed to 1d4+1, nor that a person with STR/CON 20 need to be more than minimum height/weight, nor does it say that bacon comes from pigs, nor that your spellbook cannot be an enlightened jellyfish...
Just because an heirloom weapon doesn't say it has to be an heirloom weapon, doesn't mean that it isn't. Sure, you can re-fluff it to be whatever, but then you are doing something else. Nothing inherently WRONG with it, but it is not the trait as written or intended.
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."
Insert before leaving village : before leaving he stop at the foot of his deadfather, the one guy in the village with many dead orc around him, he take the family weapon. Today he's....
Two traits explained in one... ;)
As many plot hooks in one than in another (what if the orcs have not killed everyone like he think or where there especially for him and he don't know it ? What if his weapon is more special than he think ?)
For a DM there can always be a plot behind even the most tiny background... ;) You're an orphan ? Who killed your parent ? Who raised you ? etc. etc.
Loen.
As a player, I seldom choose character options that are situational. This trait falls into that category because it depends on whether the GM has successfully departed you from your heirloom weapon. And, believe me, that will happen at least a couple times during the character's career. This trait is beneficial for this weapon only, which also means that you have to craft additional enchantments on it, rather than buy a better weapon off-the-shelf. This takes time and isn't always successful (and the character might not be able to do it himself).
Also, what happens when said weapon is completely lost? Say, your character is made prisoner by a dwarven tribe and, in the process of escaping, the prison's storage cells crumbles atop the party's equipment, destroying most of it under tons of rubble. Or it is lost in a battle above a volcano and falls in a lava pit. What then? Would you GMs allow the hierloom weapon to be reforged? Or not?
Admittedly, this is situational and might offer good adventuring hooks. But it's also open to GM's fiat more than the other traits.
That said, this trait is pretty powerful. A free EWP tacked with a stacking +1 to attack (unless I'm mistaken, this +1 doesn't apply to damage) is impressive for a half-feat. Might as well remove that +1.
And one final note: if your ideas for a character involve him wielding two similar weapons, this trait might not be as useful.
