|
I think we are over-reacting, as usual. After going through some trait options, since I was planning on asking my GM to get a replacement trait(Scholar of the Great Beyond, actually) for my now nerfed trait, I came across what the point of the traits was originally
"Think of character traits as “story seeds” for your background; after you pick your two traits, you’ll have a point of inspiration from which to build your character’s personality and history."
In this sense, the new Heirloom Weapon fits well. It's no longer a superior mechanical benefit, but a nifty story seed to build a character concept around. For instance, I went and paid the cost for masterwork transmutation, added a line or two to my chronicle about the weapon getting a new shine after the test of time(that thing used to be an executioner's sword in Galt before the revolution) and my previous character concept held true.
So yeah, I no longer get the trait bonus to hit, but my character is proficient with a darn martial weapon - including cool story backing.
Naturally, I'm going to swear loudly once somebody shatters the thing, but that held true for the old version as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Heavy Sigh*
This whole thread is laced with so much that makes baby Aroden cry....
Okay I'm going to try to hit a few of the high notes.
First. This was NOT an over-powered trait. It was not equal to a feat either.
It gave you ONE, let me stress this again, O N E that is 1, you got that ONE damn weapon. Was that weapon pretty freaking sweet? Yeah it was.. it could have been a Masterwork Exotic weapon. That is all one and only one little F N weapon.
"Oh oh it was half of Weapon Focus and half of blah blah blha..".
Are you for real?
How in the blue Hell do you figure that the use of a single weapon.. no wait.. a single UNIQUE weapon is the same as half that feat? I'm not sure how this part is so skipped over by some of you people. I have in my hand... "Destiny" The Bastard sword of the House Valerii. In my hands this weapon is ready to curve out yet more history as it has in the hands of...oh crud... I lost it, had it stolen, broken, taken from me, shoved up a dragon's backside as it flew away.
This is not even something that is hard to do.. accept for the dragon thing. Sunder, a well rolled disarm, Sleight of hand, failed Perception roll while asleep or just plain getting your butt kicked and having it taken from you. This.. this is too over powered?
Any and all, I repeat any and ALL advantages and perks of this trait are tied to a single and unique item.
Now to get to the part that bugs me the most...
I hate Gamers. I hate them like I hate anything that eats away at the good and enjoyable things in life.
I love Roleplayers though.
This is the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
I have an X-Box for mindless hacking and Slashing. I have a Computer for Fill in the Blank-craft. I play PFRPG for..well that whole RP thing.
It's important to me. It make me smile, it breaks up the time between working on real life. Hell it even keeps me amused enough to take an axe to the faces of the people we all deal with that we wish we did not have to deal with. Arodus is from a long line of Chels that have done their part to empower their house and enrich their name. Destiny is an Heirloom weapon it's not a Curio. It's not a "keepsake". It is not some raggedy @$$ state issued short sword handed to the great grand of a filthy peasant. That standard issue blade of Farmer Jeb is not an heirloom weapon it's hand me down sword. It's in fact just a sword that I have taught MYSELF to pull off a trick with.
Buh buh buh my granny passed down this awesome gun from the civil war of China and that's the same as.. *stop*
No it's not the same and do you know why?
You are not in Fantasy Character!
That gun is just an old gun, special to you yes but you'll never walk out of your house with that junk and become a legend.
"Hey ten years ago some idiot tried to take over Texas with an old rifle from China. S.W.A.T. tried to talk him down but the damn thing still worked and he hit a cop with it. They lit his A** up!".
...I stand corrected.
"Any char built around a trait was..".
Are you for real?
What the heck happened to our hobby!?
FU Zorro! Foils are broken we are making them only stabbing weapons so ya better POKE an Fn' Z in things... or call yourself the DOT, maybe Period Man? Meh anybody built around one weapon is lame anyway.
Hey.. you..Batman? Yeah that whole Bat thing scares kids so we gotta cut that. No big deal you are still rich and want to fight crime and all that other junk just lose the Bat thing.. what are you a one trick pony?
To a RPer this stuff matters, it's called style and flair. It's... it's not going to make a bit of difference to you Gamer types is it?
Paizo stop feeding into the whines of Gamers you have an amazing product here. You people brought me back to D&D. This erosion of the hobby is seen everywhere. It's what made WoW into a cardgame and what made AD&D into WoW.
Sorry for any spelling errors in advance it's early for me... and I'm disgusted.
|
|
"To a RPer this stuff matters, it's called style and flair. It's... it's not going to make a bit of difference to you Gamer types is it?"
Style and flair require no mechanical benefits, in fact they require no mechanics at all. The heirloom armament can still be a fascinating weapon with an epoch-long history. Masterwork and a free Weapon Focus need not be included in that.
And there's a relatively simple way to take noble heritage into account via traits - Rich Parents. It buys you a masterwork weapon easily. And there's no implicit requirement that the money exists in any actual form or shape. Use it in character creation to acquire a weapon. Starting wealth afterall represents your acquired starting provisions - including gear. Your parents do not need to have had any actual wealth for the trait to work and no you have a free masterwork weapon. And, not to mention, higher than expected starting wealth value as well.
There's a wealth of ways to fix a broken weapon anyway. And having the blade broken early on could be an interesting motivation for a character to adventure. Once you hit higher levels sundering becomes harder and spells easier to come by anyhow.
Nothing happened to our hobby, people just started confusing mechanical superiority with roleplaying.
|
A mechanical change in no way hurts the roleplaying potential. I for one do not understand what that whole thing has to do with a change to the mechanics of the trait. It is still a weapon handed down through the family. It is the EXACT same flavor and fluff.
Whole lot of stuff...
Yes and no. Of course if you want to play a PC whose story line is that they have a heirloom that they hit ppl with then you need no trait at all. You just accept that you are stuck with a weapon you can afford at level one which you may or may not be proficient in. Perhaps even opting to take a -1 to hit when using other weapons to reflect the bond with "your" one.
The question is what mechanical detriment are you prepared to take for the RP element or maybe the question is what deteriment should you be prepared to take?
The cool thing about this is that it gives a mechanical benefit linked to the story that gives a benefit to a PC using one specific weapon she has had from word go.... And IMHO being tied to one weapon is a mechanical detriment even if it stems from a RP decision.
As I have said if widely available magics allow the weapon to be changed to MW and thus enchantable then it is less of a pain but I would still prefer it to apply to any weapon as exotics are not all that hot anymore but suit the flavour nicely.
Simply put if you are going to use one particular weapon when ever practical then some mechanical quid quo pro is surely appropriate?
W
W
It is not possible for this to be true. In fact, can you think of another trait that "defines" a character?I might be on my own here, but I firmly believe the following:
TRAITS WERE DESIGNED TO BE BUILT AROUND.
Killer
BulliedReactionary
Thuggery
There's the first four jumped straight into my head.
All of these have excellent fluff that a player could pick up and immediately get a backstory taster off and build their backstory and persona from there.
The difference between those and Heirloom weapon is that HW was one of the Traits I felt were something that a player shoudl be committing to going forward with long term.
Simply put, the trait was something about to become a landscape fixture that the player was building on - this heirloom he was taking on to greater glory, The Eternal Champion with his Cosmic Sword type deal and in exchange for the significant DISadvantages he would be dealing with later (selling loot at wholesale to enchant it at retail) and for it to be the FREE GM PLOT going forward, he got a good deal in the exchange.
No other trait allows a GM to do the player over quite as easily as that trait, so there's Devil in the detail - anything from sundering it and requiring the player to go on sidequests, through to having it stolen as a plot hook yada yada...
I'm not suggesting the original version was balanced, as I say, for the downsides above I felt it was compensated quite nicely, but a change was reasonable too - the change given was too much though.
Now only a nutter would touch it.
|
Killer
Bullied
Reactionary
Thuggery
I have to say that I'm amused that you chose these four. Not a single one of these (and I suspect, not many traits at all, if any others beside HW) requires the mechanics of the trait to make the character build actually work. You managed to pick four that don't. Can you think of *any* that do?
I have to say that I'm amused that you chose these four. Not a single one of these (and I suspect, not many traits at all, if any others beside HW) requires the mechanics of the trait to make the character build actually work. You managed to pick four that don't. Can you think of *any* that do?
The point is, and I will make it again, that they are the basis on which you can build a character, they don't just get into 'making the build work', I build characters, not stat blocks.
Its amazing how many people were 'bullied as children (fluff) and got a +2 Init bonus that stacks with just about everything and works forever', yet apparently their backstory states they were respected in the village and really happy happy joy joy people. Simply put, people are happy to pick out the cherries and then abandon the 'fluff'
Rollplay vs Roleplay.
Heirloom weapon was one of the few traits where you COULDN'T just abandin the fluff, and indeed had to cart that downside with you perpetually.
Another trait similarly putting an imposition on the character is the nice one from Legacy of Fire, giving you a nice gizmo but putting you 500gp in the hole.
There are a few kicking around with ongoing repercussions, but when you take such a significant trait then you SHOULD be rewarded.
It's not just cruddy players, its bone lazy GM's.
Let me be clear, I don't mind the majority of the changes, but restricting the weapon to a normal simple or martial weapon just because of a mere +1 from masterwork or the chance a powergamer might abuse an exotic weapon removes far more potential stories than I think the problem justifies. I don't really care if a player gets a +1 that everyone will have by 3rd level anyway; it's not that empowering for long enough to matter in a campaign, it gives the player a reason to spend a trait to give the DM plothooks, and its still tied to a single weapon, which is a big limitation in most games.
If all a player wants is pure RP, they don't need the trait, but if you expect them to spend a trait on a story, you better be willing to give them at least some mechanical benefit. As it is, the only stories allowed are "This once was a masterwork weapon, but now it isn't" or "It's a piece of crap, but it my family's piece of crap," both stories that don't require a trait to use, and the mechanical benefits aren't enough to justify the costs of mechanically tying yourself to a single weapon for the duration of your career.
If the point of traits is to give players a minor reward for more rping, the revised version fails. The current mechanical benefits aren't worth the hassle, and it doesn't provide mechanical support for a wider range of stories than would otherwise be supported. That is why I think the revised version is bad. It adds nothing of value to the game anymore relative to the cost. I think that if they had left the masterwork weapon part alone, without adding an exotic weapon restriction, it would have been fine; it would still be on the high end, but when giving the DM multiple plothooks and accepting a potential Achilles' Heel, it needs to have a stronger mechanical kick in return.
I know a lot of people dislike using non mechanical measures to balance out mechanical measures, but in this case, that is the whole point of the trait. If you don't like that, just ban it and move on. Trying to fix it mechanically won't resolve that basic reality.
I know a lot of people dislike using non mechanical measures to balance out mechanical measures, but in this case, that is the whole point of the trait. If you don't like that, just ban it and move on. Trying to fix it mechanically won't resolve that basic reality.
Generally those people who prefer to think of the game as a session of tactical mini's, where roleplay is an adjunct as opposed to the main point.
|
|
Let me be clear, I don't mind the majority of the changes, but restricting the weapon to a normal simple or martial weapon just because of a mere +1 from masterwork or the chance a powergamer might abuse an exotic weapon removes far more potential stories than I think the problem justifies. I don't really care if a player gets a +1 that everyone will have by 3rd level anyway; it's not that empowering for long enough to matter in a campaign, it gives the player a reason to spend a trait to give the DM plothooks, and its still tied to a single weapon, which is a big limitation in most games.
Not letting me have a +5 dragonsbane greataxe at first level limits potential stories too.
Not letting me have a +5 dragonsbane greataxe at first level limits potential stories too.
........... Really? I'm hoping my sarcasm sensor is picking this up right.
Not letting me have a +5 dragonsbane greataxe at first level limits potential stories too.
...because thats on about the same level right? :p
So, how would these now ruined and unplayable concepts have worked before the trait?
Not letting me have a +5 dragonsbane greataxe at first level limits potential stories too.
A +1 for the first two levels that someone else may not have quite yet is not even remotely the same as a +5 dragonsbane greataxe. One is a very temporary advantage; the other is something that may not even be seen by level 15+ characters.
So, how would these now ruined and unplayable concepts have worked before the trait?
Plenty of reading on how that works already posted up in this thread...
So, how would these now ruined and unplayable concepts have worked before the trait?
A lot of people enjoy having their character sheet match their character concept, so unless they were able to convince their DM to sign off on the idea, and stretch the rules accordingly, the concept would probably end up getting scrapped. With Living Greyhawk, PFS, or other organized play, probably never even seriously considered, reducing available background stories considerably, which is one reason I tend not to care for organized play.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just a silly question...
Isn't the feat still too powerful? I mean if a trait is supposed to be 'half a feat' then isn't this trait too powerful since it can give the character a martial weapon proficiency?
(Yes the above is sarcasm. Just as the Martial Weapon proficiency feat is no where equal to other feats, some traits aren't going to be equal to all others.)
Not letting me have a +5 dragonsbane greataxe at first level limits potential stories too....because thats on about the same level right? :pSo you are saying "Limiting story ideas" isn't a legitimate workaround for a broken concept?
That's kind of what I thought too yet, here we are.
Broken concept no. Unbroken yet slightly unbalanced for a couple levels yes.
So you are saying "Limiting story ideas" isn't a legitimate workaround for a broken concept?
In extreme cases, limiting story ideas is a legitimate tool, but a lot of the stories I see people rejecting that are built around heirloom weapon aren't extreme cases. The biggest knock against them is that they aren't what people have gotten used to seeing over the years, and therefore they must be broken. If pushed to the limit, the trait can be the basis for cheesy builds, but so can anything. Unless you're willing to invest in feats, the active mechanical advantage of the trait is virtually nil after 3rd level, and while some of the exotic weapons can cause problems, that would be because of the weapon itself, and blaming the trait for that is just plain silly.
Broken concept no. Unbroken yet slightly unbalanced for a couple levels yes.Not letting me have a +5 dragonsbane greataxe at first level limits potential stories too....because thats on about the same level right? :pSo you are saying "Limiting story ideas" isn't a legitimate workaround for a broken concept?
That's kind of what I thought too yet, here we are.
I can live with unbalanced for a couple of levels because nothing is perfectly balanced at all levels. At any given point in time, there will always be one trait/class feature/feat/widget that is mechanically better than everything else. As long as it isn't always the same thing, than the trait/class feature/feat/widget is probably as balanced as one can reasonably expect from this particular system.
True, not all Feats are equal.
Some are mechanically superior, and some are inferior and designed to be 'Feat Taxes'.
|
|
I can live with unbalanced for a couple of levels because nothing is perfectly balanced at all levels. At any given point in time, there will always be one trait/class feature/feat/widget that is mechanically better than everything else. As long as it isn't always the same thing, than the trait/class feature/feat/widget is probably as balanced as one can reasonably expect from this particular system.
Why does it ever need to be unbalanced?
Because it limits story ideas...
The problem with this is you can use it to make ANY trait overpowered, then suddenly everyone has a 'unique' story about grandpa's glaive.
If you just make it balanced then the people who take it are the ones who actually care about the story of grandpa's glaive.
If you just make it balanced then the people who take it are the ones who actually care about the story of grandpa's glaive.
The fact that the trait dies always makes it unbalanced against 'perpetual' traits. It is better mechanically against other traits because of the risk factors involved.
So is the trait gratning you a Wayfinder, though in that case you are only limited to paying a 500gp debt back.
The removal of M/work and Exotic are the points I don't like. Grant the proficiency in that weapon, and chuck out the +1 guff and you have a good trait.
There's risk, reward, and good story.
|
|
It doesn't die, you just have to pay to upgrade it one more time than you have to pay to upgrade a masterwork weapon.
The difference is 360gp.
If you want grandpas expensive glaive take rich parents and you have your masterwork glaive.
If you want proficiency with a weapon you don't otherwise have, take this.
You have two paths to get where you want to go.
So, how would these now ruined and unplayable concepts have worked before the trait?Plenty of reading on how that works already posted up in this thread...
Oh you mean all the bits of you guys b*~&@ing over crunch and ignoring fluff ways to match the concept?
Honestly this is about power gaming pure and simple and has nothing to do with a story concept or fluff.
So, how would these now ruined and unplayable concepts have worked before the trait?Plenty of reading on how that works already posted up in this thread...Oh you mean all the bits of you guys b!#!&ing over crunch and ignoring fluff ways to match the concept?
Honestly this is about power gaming pure and simple and has nothing to do with a story concept or fluff.
Really this is about powergaming a +1 to hit over what iwould normally have is not powergaming. Though after reading some other threads on traits i have seen people wanting a more general perception trait be called powergaming.
Its about the fact that by the rules the weapon would have to be discarded even though its an heirloom since you can't upgrade to masterwork by the rules. So whats the point of taking it now all the bonus are useless in 3 to 4 levels when you start needing magic weapons to even deal damage to creatures.
Its about the fact that by the rules the weapon would have to be discarded even though its an heirloom since you can't upgrade to masterwork by the rules. So whats the point of taking it now all the bonus are useless in 3 to 4 levels when you start needing magic weapons to even deal damage to creatures.
You people have been told a dozen times now a spell fixes that, you have been told they will look into it for PFS and it was always meant to work in PFS.
That really is not the real issue, if its crunch say so, don't claim a concept you can do without the trait is now ruined when that simply is false.
However now i am paying even more for my weapon to be masterwork than Joe the barbarian who just went and bought his unless i personally know the spell or the mage doesn't charge me for casting since i have both a spell cost of 250 assuming he is only 3rd level and the 300 gold cost of the component meaning i'm out even longer than someone else on this all for one of 3 benifits that are outshined by favored class options or arent that useful to begin with.
That really is not the real issue, if its crunch say so, don't claim a concept you can do without the trait is now ruined when that simply is false.
Oh cool, can you like the spell that gave that exotic capability too please?
Oh cool, can you like the spell that gave that exotic capability too please?
That really is not the real issue, if its crunch say so, don't claim a concept you can do without the trait is now ruined when that simply is false.
Masterwork transformation UM pg 228
Oh cool, can you like the spell that gave that exotic capability too please?
That really is not the real issue, if its crunch say so, don't claim a concept you can do without the trait is now ruined when that simply is false.
See power gaming issue. You are wanting a free feat + master work + a +1 to hit....Not fluff, not background, nothing to do with a concept.
If you love your grand daddy spiked chain so much, pack it around until ya can learn to use it with a feat..Like everyone else.
Prof with only that weapong which is a bit high but not unheard of some races get 3 or 4 for free.
Masterwork is the +1 to hit so its not masterwork and +1 its just MW
So what i want is simply the abilty to use the weapon not even another of the same type just the one and for it to be MW.
Doesnt seem that much like power gaming compared to free extend on my mage armor or a first level +6 to init.
See power gaming issue. You are wanting a free feat + master work + a +1 to hit....Not fluff, not background, nothing to do with a concept.
If you love your grand daddy spiked chain so much, pack it around until ya can learn to use it with a feat..Like everyone else.
Except that no one is arguing that all of the revisions are bad. Everyone seems to think that the proficiency or a bonus in limited circumstances is fine. The only things being debated are the masterwork and the exotic weapon access. If they had left the +1 to attacks and only changed the first part, than it would be a different story, but as it is, they changed both parts when only one part needed to be changed.
It's a strong trait that requires a fair amount of DM work, but the changes didn't change the amount of DM work required, so the real challenge was left untouched. It relies on DM effort and rping to balance out the mechanical aspects; if you don't like that way of balancing things, ban the trait entirely, it's not for you. It's hardwired into the trait in ways that other traits aren't. The player gets greater rewards, but at a potentially higher cost.
As for the spell, it's great, and a nice option, but I don't need a trait to use it. Nothing people who are complaining about "powergaming" has suggested requires the trait at all, and yet they seem to think that it still serves a valid purpose. Unless you're a AOO or maneuver expert, it doesn't. It doesn't add any rp potential to the game that wasn't already there, and the proficiency by itself isn't going to be enough to make most people think it worth a trait slot, especially since it's limited to simple or martial weapons. Also, relying on a spell that appears in another book that isn't the core book is a problem.
My complaint isn't the loss of power, it's the fact that the revised trait doesn't do what it is supposedly supposed to do. Quite simply, while before it was probably a bit too powerful, now it's largely pointless. Those who want to rp everything you suggest will do so anyway, and those who think it's limitations and weak bonuses aren't worth the hassle will continue to house rule it, since those people probably don't worry about organized play, which is the only place it causes unresolvable obstacles. Only those who specialize in specific tricks are going to even consider it as currently written. The proficiency by itself, with all the weapon limitations, means nothing to most of the classes.
If they had left the +1 to attacks and only changed the first part, than it would be a different story, but as it is, they changed both parts when only one part needed to be changed.
Even if it just granted a +1 bonus to attacks to one single weapon, I would still say that it would be too strong for a trait. Not insanely strong, but closer to the power of a feat than a trait. Similar combat oriented traits that come to mind grant a +1 bonus to opportunity attacks with a single group of weapons as their only bonus (Bullied for unarmed attacks, fencer for weapons like the sword and dagger). Even though the +1 bonus to attacks for Heirloom Weapon was restricted to one unique weapon, the negative ramifications of that just don't come up enough in my mind to make this bonus any less powerful than Weapon Focus.
Breaking the weapon beyond the capability of the party to repair or robbing the character of the weapon are both possible, but both would take so much effort that, in my opinion, that it wouldn't be worth the effort just to deny the character the +1 bonus to attacks. All of the theoretical possibilities where the character might lose their heirloom weapon apply equally to any person who wields a weapon and it is pretty much as devastating to them (mechanically) as it is to a character with an heirloom weapon.
If they had left the +1 to attacks and only changed the first part, than it would be a different story, but as it is, they changed both parts when only one part needed to be changed.Even if it just granted a +1 bonus to attacks to one single weapon, I would still say that it would be too strong for a trait. Not insanely strong, but closer to the power of a feat than a trait. Similar combat oriented traits that come to mind grant a +1 bonus to opportunity attacks with a single group of weapons as their only bonus (Bullied for unarmed attacks, fencer for weapons like the sword and dagger). Even though the +1 bonus to attacks for Heirloom Weapon was restricted to one unique weapon, the negative ramifications of that just don't come up enough in my mind to make this bonus any less powerful than Weapon Focus.
Breaking the weapon beyond the capability of the party to repair or robbing the character of the weapon are both possible, but both would take so much effort that, in my opinion, that it wouldn't be worth the effort just to deny the character the +1 bonus to attacks. All of the theoretical possibilities where the character might lose their heirloom weapon apply equally to any person who wields a weapon and it is pretty much as devastating to them (mechanically) as it is to a character with an heirloom weapon.
The point I was trying to make is that the trait, for better or worse, has two parts. Nerfing both parts was unnecessary and gutted the intent of the trait.
|
|
Let us please, for at the sake of argument agree that the classic fantasy trope of a family sword is one that many players would like to use.
We also known that in a campaign the weapon you start with will very soon be redundant. Either because you buy a one or obtain one either by a reward or spoils of war. So unless the player is happy to play with the same 20 gp weapon until doomsday the mechanics let down the trope.
However since 3rd the practical facility to enchant ones own gear has existed. So with a little bit of tweaking the trope can live again.
There is still a cost. In a normal campaign where you kill monsters and steal their stuff, essentially passing up the chance of finding a new better item and instead spending all ones cash on upgrading the existing one is a mechanical disadvantage quite a big one.
In the likes of PFS where you pay for everything you find it is less and the original trait even more unbalanced. Oh, and it's from PFS that I am coming and so that is what is colouring my thinking. In PFS play where masterwork transformation is available my gripe remains that the option of exotic weapons should be reinstated.
For a normal campaign the old tweaking worked but it was too cheap for what it did but asking a player to turn down new and better magical items and only pay to enchant his own should have some significant mechanical quid pro quo.
W
|
|
Why are people upset over a simple +1 to hit from MW at first level? (I'm not arguing the trait bonus. I think that should have been gotten rid of myself.)
A bonus doesn't allow you to hit. The DIE ROLL allows you to hit.
Now if your players miraculously never roll below a fifteen, you have other problems. I've had days I couldn't hit an AC 15 with a +6 to hit. So a +1 doesn't mean CRAP!
But it's 300 free gold!
Again; So friggin what? Are you such a poor GM you cannot adjust your game mastery style to your players power level. Right now people are arguing against the folks that are saying that if its a regular weapon, it should be free. Are you that afraid that your players might get something?
As for "There's a spell that can MW it!".
There was not 2 months ago. If they had made the change then. The rightful b~#~+ing would be WORSE. And in PFS right now, UNTIL they make an exception for this spell, all instantaneous spells with a permantent effect, end at the end of a scenario.
People could use it for a free EWP!
So? It is literally only for 1, I repeat 1 unique weapon. And if you don't like your players using that weapon, have the baddies sunder, steal, or disarm all the time. The player will rightly be upset, but if, as GM, you do not say NO at character creation. YOU have no right to b%$@%.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, a thought hit me this morning.
since you have to pay for the weapon anyway, would the trait work better if it worked like a racial trait like elves and dwarves?
So you pick one weapon, this weapon is long associated with your family. You are proficient in the weapon if simple or martial. if it's exoitc, then you may treat it as a martial weapon.
So it's like half or a third of a racial trait.
|
|
Oh, and to clarify the PFS spell ending. here are teh revelant quotes.
From Page 20 on Spell duration:
Spell Duration
Simply put, any spell cast by a PC during the course of a
scenario that is still active at the end of a scenario ends
when the scenario does. For example, if your cleric PC
cast bless on the party and bless is still active when the
scenario ends, then bless ends.
And form Page 23, Under Purchasing Spellcasting services:
(last Paragraph)
Finally, as noted in Chapter 6, any spell cast during
the course of a scenario ends at the end of that scenario.
Hmm, a thought hit me this morning.
since you have to pay for the weapon anyway, would the trait work better if it worked like a racial trait like elves and dwarves?
So you pick one weapon, this weapon is long associated with your family. You are proficient in the weapon if simple or martial. if it's exoitc, then you may treat it as a martial weapon.
So it's like half or a third of a racial trait.
I would say that being able to choose exactly what weapon you apply this to would mean that it would be as strong as the racial ability if not stronger.
|
|
I would say that being able to choose exactly what weapon you apply this to would mean that it would be as strong as the racial ability if not stronger.Hmm, a thought hit me this morning.
since you have to pay for the weapon anyway, would the trait work better if it worked like a racial trait like elves and dwarves?
So you pick one weapon, this weapon is long associated with your family. You are proficient in the weapon if simple or martial. if it's exoitc, then you may treat it as a martial weapon.
So it's like half or a third of a racial trait.
I am put in mind of the alternative half elven racial trait 'ancestral arms'. Of course with heirloom weapon you don't have to be a half elf but instead of a proper weapon proficiency you gain only proficiency with one single weapon.
If the PFS position is that the effect of the masterworking spell ends that really would need addressing. Now if someone needs something 'Mended' or 'Made Whole" during a session I wouldn't rule that it is broken by the start of the next and indeed Raise Dead spells don't work like that either. However a clarification of what to do with existing PFS characters who have the trait would be entirely desirable.
W
|
A blanket statement of duration:instantaneous end at the end of the PFS scenario is purely an error(or a terrible ruling). If it was not, then you better track all those cure spells! Your wounds come right back because the cures would be nullified. But all this is for another thread
School conjuration (healing); Level bard 1, cleric 1, druid 1, paladin 1, ranger 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw Will half (harmless); see text; Spell Resistance yes (harmless); see text
When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply spell resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.
The point I was trying to make is that the trait, for better or worse, has two parts. Nerfing both parts was unnecessary and gutted the intent of the trait.It had three parts and it kept a big part of the nicest, the ability to gain proficiency with a weapon you didn't have proficiency in.
Except that with the lack of exotic weapons, you can't even say it still has that to the degree it did before. They simply took too much out of it. If they had written this way originally, most people wouldn't have even given it a second glance because it has so many limiters that the benefits simply aren't worth the price of a trait slot.