I personally think my only issue with the new version is that it specifies a simple or martial weapon.
If it allowed you to simply choose a weapon, I think it'd be perfect.
That or put the masterwork back in, taking out both exotic and masterwork was too much. Putting one or the other, but not both, back in is really all that is needed to get it to a form that people would actually want to use.
|
Lot of PFS GMs don't even use errata. Lord knows how many still uses the original Smite, and the original Growth domain.Since it's a matter of 'fairness' in the shared world, the players and GMs should be working together to incorperate up to date rules. 'lesser cheating' vs 'greater cheating' is still 'cheating'.
Feel free to ask for a major crackdown. Venture captains don't even check.
That or put the masterwork back in, taking out both exotic and masterwork was too much. Putting one or the other, but not both, back in is really all that is needed to get it to a form that people would actually want to use.I personally think my only issue with the new version is that it specifies a simple or martial weapon.
If it allowed you to simply choose a weapon, I think it'd be perfect.
Well, I think any one of the previous three bonuses (MW, +1 Trait Bonus, proficiency) were pretty trait worthy on their own.
300 gp from a trait is pretty typical, if you look at cash based traits outside of Rich Parents, if I recall correctly. The other two are pretty solid half-feats.
I actually like the idea of Heirloom being a 'choose one of the following options' deal, though.
I think it's perfectly balanced now. It WAS Op before, easily worth a feat.
Now it works perfectly with the other traits, I wouldn't change it. MAYBE I would add something like (If you pay a blacksmith the masterwork value he can reforge it to be masterwork) I know it's outside of the norm, but it wouldn' break the game at all.
I don't like this change. My reason is there was nothing wrong with trait as it was. Now it's just adds situational modifiers that become irrelevant after you find your first Masterwork weapon.
I don't like this change. My reason is there was nothing wrong with trait as it was. Now it's just adds situational modifiers that become irrelevant after you find your first Masterwork weapon.
What was wrong with the trait as it was previously was that it violated trait design philosophy.
Traits are half-feat equivalents; previously, it was 300 gp (a valid trait on its own, per AP traits), weapon proficiency with any single weapon (half a proficiency feat), and focus in any single weapon (half of weapon focus).
Regardless of power level, it was the equivalent of three traits per the stated design of how traits worked.
I'm not a PFS GM, so I'll probably just add back the ability to exotic weapons for my players. I do like that Masterwork is removed, but I think there's some flavor and story components that come from using a weapon that you're not trained in by default. That seems to be the biggest issue, in my opinion, the nerfing of the trait.
Bleurgh.
And here I was considering a Bladebound Magus, feeling all clever and stuff that I had found a trait that synergizes perfectly with the archetype. Now, why the Hells would I even think about taking this horribad thing?
Srsly? Why?
Why would ANYONE want to waste a trait slot on this garbage? You get a regular ol' simple or martial weapon (that you have to pay for...~blinks~ oohhkaaaayyyy), and then get one of the following:
A) proficiency with it (~heurk~)
B) +1 trait bonus on AoO's with it OR
C) +2 trait bonus on ONE KIND OF combat maneuver when wielding this specific P.O.S. weapon.
Aren't there traits that do the exact same thing except doesn't limit it to a weapon you're going to chuck within a few levels?
|
|
I don't like this change. My reason is there was nothing wrong with trait as it was. Now it's just adds situational modifiers that become irrelevant after you find your first Masterwork weapon.What was wrong with the trait as it was previously was that it violated trait design philosophy.
Traits are half-feat equivalents; previously, it was 300 gp (a valid trait on its own, per AP traits), weapon proficiency with any single weapon (half a proficiency feat), and focus in any single weapon (half of weapon focus).
Regardless of power level, it was the equivalent of three traits per the stated design of how traits worked.
Without the masterwork part, this trait is very bad now. Being able to enchant a weapon is extremely important, and now without that (unless Paizo allows another method), the proficiency, the +1 to AoOs, or the +2 to one combat move doesn't matter beyond level 3 or so.
Taking a trait that gives you an extra class skill are even better now.
Or my favorite trait, River Rat. It adds to the base damage of daggers! Amazing!
On the other hand it does away with legitimate storyline/seemingly reasonable combos such as...
* Elven Curve Blades for Half Elves
/stuff/
Not quite, don't forget Half-Elves (with the permission of the DM) can still do this:
Ancestral Arms: Some half-elves receive training in an unusual weapon. Half-elves with this racial trait receive Exotic Weapon Proficiency or Martial Weapon Proficiency with one weapon as a bonus Feat at 1st level. This racial trait replaces the adaptability racial trait.
You know, I think I'd have preferred to see something like this as a trait: “[special] Weapon: You have acquired a masterwork weapon (paying only the standard gp cost for the weapon). This weapon must be one that you have proficency in, either through race, class, or a feat. This can represent a gift from your family or a patron or a discovery that set you on your adventuring career. If the weapon has any oher special attributes (such as being made from a special material), they must also be paid for when you acquire the trait.”
+1,
This is the best fix for the trait.
Why would ANYONE want to waste a trait slot on this garbage?
Its not bad. Its just limited in its use. As in, like many traits, it will only be useful for specific builds (as opposed to almost universally useful). Non-martial proficient classes, maneuver builds, reach builds, etc. all get good use from this feat.
And if you're using UM, there is no reason at all to chuck it after a few levels; just pay the cost to upgrade it to masterwork, and start throwing on enchantments. Sorry about PFS, though.
I don't like this change. My reason is there was nothing wrong with trait as it was. Now it's just adds situational modifiers that become irrelevant after you find your first Masterwork weapon.What was wrong with the trait as it was previously was that it violated trait design philosophy.
Traits are half-feat equivalents; previously, it was 300 gp (a valid trait on its own, per AP traits), weapon proficiency with any single weapon (half a proficiency feat), and focus in any single weapon (half of weapon focus).
Regardless of power level, it was the equivalent of three traits per the stated design of how traits worked.
That "design philosophy" is hardly present accross the board. Just take any trait giving you a new class skill (there are tons of them) along with a +1 bonus. This effectively gives you a total bonus of +4 for the skill, while skill focus grants you a mere +3. And you can stack them.
Granted the trait becomes less attractive compared to skill focus with levels, since SF eventually grants +6 to the skill (the trait is still better than half a feat then, more like 2/3 of a feat). But Heirloom weapon also lost much of it's polish with level (the masterwork quality becoming irrelevant way before level 10). But now it is completely useless.
Also, consider the lesser value of bonuses linked to items rather than to the character itself. It goes a long way in limiting the power scope of the feat.
Ok, time for a little honesty. First, anyone who says HW was not overpowered AS A TRAIT, is not being honest with themselves. Also, the argument I have heard several times here is that it is not meaningful in later levels. This is also untrue. As a fighter, I would much more prefer to have a customized magical sword that fits exactly to my character build fighting style than rely on random loot producing such. People are correct in stating that this TRAIT is almost equal to 2 feats (weapon focus and EWP). But wait, it gets even better! The trait bonus stacks w/ WF so you get both.
My 1st level PFS fighter, using Power Attack was +8 to hit and doing 1d8+6 damage, which means I just waded through all opponents in Tier 1-2 mods. Also, this trait was being taken by just about every martial character and even many non-martial characters. If thats not a sign of an overpowered trait, then I can't fathom what would be the criteria for overpowered.
All of that being said however, the erratta went to far. The limitation to simple and martial was too much IMO.
Oh, and I forgot to add... HW is an equipment trait, so you gain all those combat advantages and still can take another combat trait to boot!!
I'm perfectly honest, the trait was not over powered. It was reasonable, now it's worth taking. Now I've never made a Character who took this trait. I'm mostly a DM and from behind the screen I never saw this feat as an issue at all. It's as powerful as +1 to a skill and that skill is always a class skill trait. Making a skill a class skill for you is the equivalent of a full feat in my opinion. First since class skills +3 it's just like skill focus and can still take skill focus. Second you get +1 on top of that. With Heirloom weapon you had +2 to hit (1 trait, 1 masterwork) and you were proficient. The Masterwork bonus is short lived as well you have limited Proficiency in that weapon only. That's not even as big a bonus as the skill traits. I guess that's why in my group don't take HW unless they want it for background purposes as it work out to just +1 trait bonus since they were always proficient already and would have Masterwork weapon half way to 2nd anyways.
Now as DM I do have issue with Heirloom weapon and if I could change any one thing it would be the proficient part. Not that a balance issue but more because it makes no sense. You were trained in using your family Bastard sword but because of that you can't use any other Bastard sword? That makes no sense. What's do different about the HW that make it so different that you skills in can't be used with just any Bastard Sword. So for that reason I'd strip out the granting Proficiency with. Masterwork and +1 trait bonus to hit with weapon is good enough and if you want it to be exotic it can be. You might not be proficient but you can always learn. It's still MW and +1 trait bonus to hit with it.
That "design philosophy" is hardly present accross the board. Just take any trait giving you a new class skill (there are tons of them) along with a +1 bonus. This effectively gives you a total bonus of +4 for the skill, while skill focus grants you a mere +3. And you can stack them.
Granted the trait becomes less attractive compared to skill focus with levels, since SF eventually grants +6 to the skill (the trait is still better than half a feat then, more like 2/3 of a feat). But Heirloom weapon also lost much of it's polish with level (the masterwork quality becoming irrelevant way before level 10). But now it is completely useless.
Also, consider the lesser value of bonuses linked to items rather than to the character itself. It goes a long way in limiting the power scope of the feat.
I'd compare the class skill traits to the feat Cosmopolitan, which grants two skills as class skills AND two languages (effectively 2 ranks in linguistics, sans the other benefits of the skill).
Half of that being a single skill and a +1 bonus as a 'psuedo rank' in a skill is about right.
You know, I think I'd have preferred to see something like this as a trait: “[special] Weapon: You have acquired a masterwork weapon (paying only the standard gp cost for the weapon). This weapon must be one that you have proficency in, either through race, class, or a feat. This can represent a gift from your family or a patron or a discovery that set you on your adventuring career. If the weapon has any oher special attributes (such as being made from a special material), they must also be paid for when you acquire the trait.”
+1,
This is the best fix for the trait.
Yes, the best fix is to make it flat out worse than any other free money trait.
I'm perfectly honest, the trait was not over powered. It was reasonable, now it's worth taking. Now I've never made a Character who took this trait. I'm mostly a DM and from behind the screen I never saw this feat as an issue at all. It's as powerful as +1 to a skill and that skill is always a class skill trait. Making a skill a class skill for you is the equivalent of a full feat in my opinion. First since class skills +3 it's just like skill focus and can still take skill focus. Second you get +1 on top of that. With Heirloom weapon you had +2 to hit (1 trait, 1 masterwork) and you were proficient. The Masterwork bonus is short lived as well you have limited Proficiency in that weapon only. That's not even as big a bonus as the skill traits. I guess that's why in my group don't...Ok, time for a little honesty. First, anyone who says HW was not overpowered AS A TRAIT, is not being honest with themselves. Also, the argument I have heard several times here is that it is not meaningful in later levels. This is also untrue. As a fighter, I would much more prefer to have a customized magical sword that fits exactly to my character build fighting style than rely on random loot producing such. People are correct in stating that this TRAIT is almost equal to 2 feats (weapon focus and EWP). But wait, it gets even better! The trait bonus stacks w/ WF so you get both.
My 1st level PFS fighter, using Power Attack was +8 to hit and doing 1d8+6 damage, which means I just waded through all opponents in Tier 1-2 mods. Also, this trait was being taken by just about every martial character and even many non-martial characters. If thats not a sign of an overpowered trait, then I can't fathom what would be the criteria for overpowered.
All of that being said however, the erratta went to far. The limitation to simple and martial was too much IMO.
Oh, and I forgot to add... HW is an equipment trait, so you gain all those combat advantages and still can take another combat trait to boot!!
Now, as a GM, when I allow this trait (original version not nerf version) I don't allow exotic weapons. But I do allow the +1, MW, and proficiency. Yes, its a little more powerful than a standard trait.
But if it's roleplayed well:
1)The character will not be selling the weapon, so the MW $$ effect is minimal
2) IT allows for some cool additional builds for people looking for character and a little bonus without overbalancing anything. Give your wizard an heirloom longsword and now the party has a crunchy backup melee guy...this can be fun for the first few levels...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The whole nerf smacks of kneejerk and chinbearding.
I'm pretty sure masterwork weapons with a combat manoeuvre ability (such as trip) add the masterwork +1 to CMB checks, as well as all attack rolls, without any of the downsides of requiring a single weapon. That makes the trait useful for your first ever PFS scenario, but from then on the fighter next door can do pretty much everything you can do after spending 300gp.
If the heirloom feat allowed +2 to manoeuvres with a weapon that didn't have that special quality (disarm with a greatsword for example), and allowed it to be used as if it had the special quality, then... that might be interesting for a specific power-gamer build, but that's all. Until it gets erratad again to exclude that option.
Likewise a masterwork weapon grants +1 to all attacks, so the +1 on AoOs with your non-masterwork weapon is completely pointless after your first scenario.
The proficiency is the one thing that justifies taking the feat. A wizard could use it to throw his Lucerne Hammer with Hand of the Apprentice, but even then I'd rather just take a half-elf and use Ancestral Arms. I would never take it for a melee focused character, and I never did when it was so much better, because of the risk. Its a complete waste of space now.
I can sort of see a really poor family gifting their son with an heirloom longsword worth a years wages (15gp), and the son feeling honour bound or emotionally attached to it enough to keep using it even at high level. In fact that makes me almost teary eyed, but he'd be screwed when up against incorporeal creatures, so would need spellcasting levels to not totally suck, or a back-up weapon that's better than his primary. As a roleplaying thing that would be fine and interesting, but to lose a trait to do it on top of the deliberate rp nerf? That's harsh.
Just removing the spurious +1 to attacks would have been fine if they wanted to change it.
I personally think they nerfed it too much. I think it should have stayed a masterwork weapon, which would have made it fit the flavor more...who keeps a crappy sword that's just the same as a million other crappy swords as a family keepsake?
A great many people really. And how is it crappy? Its a sword your grand pappy used in the great war, he handed it down to his son, who handed it down to you.
How many old firearms have been passed down like this? Sure newer more expensive guns are better, but they are not the gun your family has used for 80 years.
I personally think they nerfed it too much. I think it should have stayed a masterwork weapon, which would have made it fit the flavor more...who keeps a crappy sword that's just the same as a million other crappy swords as a family keepsake?A great many people really. And how is it crappy? Its a sword your grand pappy used in the great war, he handed it down to his son, who handed it down to you.
How many old firearms have been passed down like this? Sure newer more expensive guns are better, but they are not the gun your family has used for 80 years.
The difference is that very few people actually expect to use such weapons for their intended purpose in actual combat. Some guns and swords, like the Gurant mentioned earlier, may stand the test of time, but I don't think anyone would ever call such a weapon a regular weapon.
I still have a few family weapons from WWII including a pair of sweet sweet bayonets from the .303 SMLE which are awesome looking, and a nice collection of others that that came off people not so lucky when my relatives arrived.
Whilst they are great and hold sentimental value, my current issue blade is significantly better.
They are 'HEIRLOOMS', but not Hattori Hanzo pass-me Katanas.
That is what Heirloom weapon is supposed to represent.
And here I was considering a Bladebound Magus, feeling all clever and stuff that I had found a trait that synergizes perfectly with the archetype.
The thing is, it wasn't clever, unless taking Power Attack on a two handed weapon fighter counts as clever.
It's simply what everyone even half interested in optimization was doing, because it was that much better than your other options.
3.0's designers had a philosophy that there should be hidden super-powered options and hidden trap options so the players could feel smart when they picked the former and avoided the latter. (I'm not making this up; Monte Cook's written about it.) I don't think Pathfinder is trying to have that same philosophy, and I don't think that it should.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really am curious if this might be connected to any developments in Ultimate Combat, for reals.
Never know.
What they HAVE done though, is launch something that appears to be a fairly significant change that breaks a lot of characters as it apploes retrospectively, and they haven't thought about how to deal with that mess.
I feel sorry for the PFS people all now sitting around with no clear answer on how to 'fix' their now broken characters.
Simply put it was a bad move, and poorly supported by those imlpementing it.
but hey on the odd chance you are right, "Hey guys, you can stop buying the $15 AA guide, the Trait is all fixed and shiny over in our $40 UC so buy that instead!" ;p
I personally think they nerfed it too much. I think it should have stayed a masterwork weapon, which would have made it fit the flavor more...who keeps a crappy sword that's just the same as a million other crappy swords as a family keepsake?A great many people really. And how is it crappy? Its a sword your grand pappy used in the great war, he handed it down to his son, who handed it down to you.
How many old firearms have been passed down like this? Sure newer more expensive guns are better, but they are not the gun your family has used for 80 years.
You are completely right.
Dudes, if you ONLY think about the crunch of the thing, more than half of the traits are useless. So why aren't you complaining about those!?
[
You are completely right.
Dudes, if you ONLY think about the crunch of the thing, more than half of the traits are useless. So why aren't you complaining about those!?
Yep it is now in line with other taints, And they are complaining because they lost what is more or less a free feat that stacked with other feats.
The fluff is not hurt, not a bit. They are moaning over the crunch but trying to say it is fluff they have now lost.
Simply put it was a bad move, and poorly supported by those imlpementing it.
Okay, we get it. You don't like the change.
"I have found that the Tears of Munchkins are like a good Bourbon. It is best to savor them and drink them slowly"
|
I really am curious if this might be connected to any developments in Ultimate Combat, for reals.Never know.
What they HAVE done though, is launch something that appears to be a fairly significant change that breaks a lot of characters as it apploes retrospectively, and they haven't thought about how to deal with that mess.
I feel sorry for the PFS people all now sitting around with no clear answer on how to 'fix' their now broken characters.
Simply put it was a bad move, and poorly supported by those imlpementing it.
but hey on the odd chance you are right, "Hey guys, you can stop buying the $15 AA guide, the Trait is all fixed and shiny over in our $40 UC so buy that instead!" ;p
Admittedly I keep forgetting the PFS perspective on this stuff.
Yeah, hope a reasonable solution is provided for those that leaned hard on that trait. This wasn't exactly an edge-case like that animal companion/weapon thing a while back.
I personally think they nerfed it too much. I think it should have stayed a masterwork weapon, which would have made it fit the flavor more...who keeps a crappy sword that's just the same as a million other crappy swords as a family keepsake?A great many people really. And how is it crappy? Its a sword your grand pappy used in the great war, he handed it down to his son, who handed it down to you.
How many old firearms have been passed down like this? Sure newer more expensive guns are better, but they are not the gun your family has used for 80 years.
You are completely right.
Dudes, if you ONLY think about the crunch of the thing, more than half of the traits are useless. So why aren't you complaining about those!?
One, the fluff doesn't make sense for a normal weapon. Normal weapons don't last that long, and if they do, they are relegated to fireplace trophies or training weapons; they aren't something that you would take with you into the field unless you really had no choice.
Two, crunch has to provide at least some support to the character. Getting a normal weapon that is virtually useless after level 3 isn't completely useless, but it requires specific circumstances or access to a spell from a source that may not even be used. I don't think the trait is completely useless, but especially when I feel that the fluff has been compromised, nerfing the crunch at the same time is usually a precursor to the option being largely ignored.
I really am curious if this might be connected to any developments in Ultimate Combat, for reals.Never know.
What they HAVE done though, is launch something that appears to be a fairly significant change that breaks a lot of characters as it apploes retrospectively, and they haven't thought about how to deal with that mess.
I feel sorry for the PFS people all now sitting around with no clear answer on how to 'fix' their now broken characters.
Simply put it was a bad move, and poorly supported by those imlpementing it.
but hey on the odd chance you are right, "Hey guys, you can stop buying the $15 AA guide, the Trait is all fixed and shiny over in our $40 UC so buy that instead!" ;p
Sorry mate, but if one TRAIT breakes a character, it was already a bad concept for sure.
Sorry mate, but if one TRAIT breakes a character, it was already a bad concept for sure.I really am curious if this might be connected to any developments in Ultimate Combat, for reals.Never know.
What they HAVE done though, is launch something that appears to be a fairly significant change that breaks a lot of characters as it apploes retrospectively, and they haven't thought about how to deal with that mess.
I feel sorry for the PFS people all now sitting around with no clear answer on how to 'fix' their now broken characters.
Simply put it was a bad move, and poorly supported by those imlpementing it.
but hey on the odd chance you are right, "Hey guys, you can stop buying the $15 AA guide, the Trait is all fixed and shiny over in our $40 UC so buy that instead!" ;p
Why? Because they felt like trying a non traditional concept that had official suppport? Not everyone who took the trait was looking to cheese their character; I suspect most were simply trying to actually play something different after playing enough characters that they had done all the viable traditional builds multiple times.
|
|
Sorry mate, but if one TRAIT breakes a character, it was already a bad concept for sure.I really am curious if this might be connected to any developments in Ultimate Combat, for reals.Never know.
What they HAVE done though, is launch something that appears to be a fairly significant change that breaks a lot of characters as it apploes retrospectively, and they haven't thought about how to deal with that mess.
I feel sorry for the PFS people all now sitting around with no clear answer on how to 'fix' their now broken characters.
Simply put it was a bad move, and poorly supported by those imlpementing it.
but hey on the odd chance you are right, "Hey guys, you can stop buying the $15 AA guide, the Trait is all fixed and shiny over in our $40 UC so buy that instead!" ;p
SiR I can tell you that A trait change here or there and break ANY concept , heck a Feat change does the same thing. Small things to any existing character can seriously make or break them ie If they turned Toughness back to its 3.5 version, or made power attack a 1:1 ratio, Made any skill trait only give the bonus +1, small things can make a player go "WHy did I even choose this in the first place?"
BREAK a concept is a falacy and for sure an overreaction. You can rebuild around it, most GM's would allow it. It's not like you lost your character, the fluff (which is the important thing, I might add) is still there, nothing is changed.
And I'm sorry, non masterwork weapons will last as long as masterwork ones.
I understand it's a very powerful tone down from the actual trait, but it's not at all something that can even alter the course of a character's life, let alone break it.
|
SiR I can tell you that A trait change here or there and break ANY concept , heck a Feat change does the same thing. Small things to any existing character can seriously make or break them ie If they turned Toughness back to its 3.5 version, or made power attack a 1:1 ratio, Made any skill trait only give the bonus +1, small things can make a player go "WHy did I even choose this in the first place?"
You chose it in the first place because the crunch was too good.
I've had traits negated before--a mad sorcerer with History of Heresy who, as a result of adventuring, took a level of Oracle. Poof! Trait disappeared! Not even an optimized choice! But I keep playing the PC, and everyone likes having him around and helping, so, you know what? I survived.
If losing a trait destroys a character, then the trait was too important in the first place.
I personally think they nerfed it too much. I think it should have stayed a masterwork weapon, which would have made it fit the flavor more...who keeps a crappy sword that's just the same as a million other crappy swords as a family keepsake?A great many people really. And how is it crappy? Its a sword your grand pappy used in the great war, he handed it down to his son, who handed it down to you.
How many old firearms have been passed down like this? Sure newer more expensive guns are better, but they are not the gun your family has used for 80 years.
You are completely right.
Dudes, if you ONLY think about the crunch of the thing, more than half of the traits are useless. So why aren't you complaining about those!?
Because I can't think of a single other trait that loses all usefulness after level 1, with the exception of the free money ones. This is worse than those.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm sorry, non masterwork weapons will last as long as masterwork ones.
Yep. If the weapon is cared for it lasts, if it is not cared for it does not. A normal sword that has been maintained is in better shape then a masterwork weapon left under the house for 80 years.
Also why can't my longsowrd be cool looking just because it was not made by the lands best craftsmen with the best steel and jewels?
I can still have an eagle headed hilt with "jeweled " eyes and the name "Ever sight" written in old tongue upon its blade.
|
|
Because I can't think of a single other trait that loses all usefulness after level 1, with the exception of the free money ones. This is worse than those.
So, the nerfing is similar to simply banning the trait. Can the game survive with the trait banned? If so, we don't need to cry over it. If not, the trait was woefully imbalanced in the first place and needed banning anyway.
BREAK a concept is a falacy and for sure an overreaction. You can rebuild around it, most GM's would allow it. It's not like you lost your character, the fluff (which is the important thing, I might add) is still there, nothing is changed.
And I'm sorry, non masterwork weapons will last as long as masterwork ones.
I understand it's a very powerful tone down from the actual trait, but it's not at all something that can even alter the course of a character's life, let alone break it.
Actually, I know of at least 3 characters who will need to be rebuilt from the ground up because of this change, each taking significant hits to A. work exotic weapon profficiency into their builds. B. not be able to do what they want to until level 3 (earliest you can take EWP). This will turn at least 1 of these characters from fun and playable into non-viable given the optimazation levels of the rest of the party.
BREAK a concept is a falacy and for sure an overreaction.
In PFS, you can't work around it.
People took the Feat, and then spent the funds upgrading the weapon (it was m/work.Now thats been removed.
Those players now significantly invested in that weapon are now all in the lurch. No refunds.
PFS doesn't allow for you to merrily go off and have a rebuild... so yeah, they are now well and truly broken.
And I'm sorry, non masterwork weapons will last as long as masterwork ones.
Yep. If the weapon is cared for it lasts, if it is not cared for it does not. A normal sword that has been maintained is in better shape then a masterwork weapon left under the house for 80 years.
Also why can't my longsowrd be cool looking just because it was not made by the lands best craftsmen with the best steel and jewels?
I can still have an eagle headed hilt with "jeweled " eyes and the name "Ever sight" written in old tongue upon its blade.
Who would take the effort to decorate a blade intended to be used in combat and then neglect the actual blade? You don't need to be the best swordsmith in the land to make a mw weapon. You need to be able to hit a DC20 check. Any level 1 smith will have at least a +7. By level 3, the standard level for most adults, its not hard to have a +10, thus auto-succeeding when taking 10.
|
I can still have an eagle headed hilt with "jeweled " eyes and the name "Ever sight" written in old tongue upon its blade.
Except the writing is in marker, the jewels are party jewelry fakes, and the blade was from the bargain bin at Walmart. you can't expect engraving or real jewels in a standard PHB sword. THat's what masterwork is for.
|
|
SiR I can tell you that A trait change here or there and break ANY concept , heck a Feat change does the same thing. Small things to any existing character can seriously make or break them ie If they turned Toughness back to its 3.5 version, or made power attack a 1:1 ratio, Made any skill trait only give the bonus +1, small things can make a player go "WHy did I even choose this in the first place?"You chose it in the first place because the crunch was too good.
I've had traits negated before--a mad sorcerer with History of Heresy who, as a result of adventuring, took a level of Oracle. Poof! Trait disappeared! Not even an optimized choice! But I keep playing the PC, and everyone likes having him around and helping, so, you know what? I survived.
If losing a trait destroys a character, then the trait was too important in the first place.
Incorrect, And Who Was saying I did it for an Optimized Choice, Said character that took it was a ninja (Summoner) who inherited the Weapon Onigumo which was forged from the fangs of a bebilth after one of his great ancestor's slayed it. The Sword, due to its origin was named after the creature and used to slay demons and other evil creatures. Said Character also took Exotic Weapon Prof Bastard Sword anyway and has no score over 16, actually his highest is a 16 followed by a 14 and 13's and 12's. It would make no sense to this concept if a Bebilith Fang Sword WAS NOT masterwork at least.
I chose it because it made sense for the character, luckily I was taking fighter at 4th level anyway