Why are people upset over a simple +1 to hit from MW at first level?Why are you so upset about one average power trait versus the dozens of other average power traits? Why aren't you upset that the other dozens of traits are average power?
I wouldn't call the current version average. I would call it weak and well below average. There no mechanical advantage except for some corner cases, the type of weapon allowed is already within reach of 75% of the classes, and you are still giving yourself a potential Achilles' Heel and the DM plenty of plothooks to make his life easier, and now you have to figure out how to gain access to a spell that may not even be allowed because it comes from a different source. How much of a problem those drawbacks are will vary from game to game, class to class and build to build, but the mechanical benefits are pretty well set, and even the mildest penalties are enough to make most players cringe and stay away from it most of the time.
|
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
** spoiler omitted **
Reading the now closed thread in the PFS section things look rather grim for the future of the trait. On the plus side Mark Moreland has said that retcon for existing characters will be released. More worryingly he has also said that the current version is the only legal one
Now given the whole if ain't MW it can't be enchanted thing and if we were hoping to get round this by paying for a masterwork transformation spell we'd better factor this in re as per
K Neil Shackleton aka Scribbling Rambler (Venture-Captain), Friday, 08:13 AM
Yup. ALL spells end at the end of a scenario.
The oft-cited example of an Instantaneous spell is animate dead.
So as things stand there is no clear way to enhance an heirloom weapon in PFS.
Perhaps if the MW transmutation spell is cast in the same session as a weapon is enchanted it remains in enchanted. Who knows? I am sure that we will find out :o)
W
|
I wouldn't call the current version average. I would call it weak and well below average. There no mechanical advantage except for some corner cases, the type of weapon allowed is already within reach of 75% of the classes, and you are still giving yourself a potential Achilles' Heel and the DM plenty of plothooks to make his life easier, and now you have to figure out how to gain access to a spell that may not even be allowed because it comes from a different source. How much of a problem those drawbacks are will vary from game to game, class to class and build to build, but the mechanical benefits are pretty well set, and even the mildest penalties are enough to make most players cringe and stay away from it most of the time.Why are people upset over a simple +1 to hit from MW at first level?Why are you so upset about one average power trait versus the dozens of other average power traits? Why aren't you upset that the other dozens of traits are average power?
Correction, the type of weapon allowed is already within reach of 33% of classes. Additionally the trait is useful if you want to specialise in combat maneuvers.
If you subtract the classes that won't use weapons or use their own (Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Witch) that still leaves more than 60% of characters able to benefit from the trait.
Considering how many people I know who take half orc or elf due to the free martial weapon proficiencies I think there is still a pretty fair demand for access to martial weapons for non-martial characters.
A +2 bonus on combat maneuvers is likewise pretty solid for a trip built character (or and maneuver of your choice).
It is definitely situational, but then most traits are.
Correction, the type of weapon allowed is already within reach of 33% of classes. Additionally the trait is useful if you want to specialise in combat maneuvers.I wouldn't call the current version average. I would call it weak and well below average. There no mechanical advantage except for some corner cases, the type of weapon allowed is already within reach of 75% of the classes, and you are still giving yourself a potential Achilles' Heel and the DM plenty of plothooks to make his life easier, and now you have to figure out how to gain access to a spell that may not even be allowed because it comes from a different source. How much of a problem those drawbacks are will vary from game to game, class to class and build to build, but the mechanical benefits are pretty well set, and even the mildest penalties are enough to make most players cringe and stay away from it most of the time.Why are people upset over a simple +1 to hit from MW at first level?Why are you so upset about one average power trait versus the dozens of other average power traits? Why aren't you upset that the other dozens of traits are average power?
Unfortunately, that 33% is the most likely to be taking the trait, because they are the most likely to be wanting the bonuses to maneuvers. To most people who don't already have access to martial weapons, proficiency by itself is nice, but hardly worth what you are handing the DM. It's just too much of a corner case for its cost.
|
|
I see tons of people using half orc or elf to get martial weapons so there is plenty of use for the other 66%. Read through the forums, half orcs falchion/ great axe is one of the biggest reasons they are loved. Elves long bow access is coveted.
Essentially every single character in the game can benefit from the trait in one way or another which is far more than most traits.
Essentially every single character in the game can benefit from the trait in one way or another which is far more than most traits.
If you say so. Personally, I wouldn't consider it for most of my characters as written because the benefit isn't worth the cost. The cost may not be mechanical, but it is still a very real cost.
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 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.
Correct, but it seemed to be compared to the racial abilities of dwarves, elves, half-orcs, and not that alternate half-elf trait. The half-elf trait is, I would say, better than the other weapon traits the other races get, and it is the value of a feat and not appropriate to grant via a trait like Heirloom Weapon.
|
|
Essentially every single character in the game can benefit from the trait in one way or another which is far more than most traits.If you say so. Personally, I wouldn't consider it for most of my characters as written because the benefit isn't worth the cost. The cost may not be mechanical, but it is still a very real cost.
The 'cost' is what you forego to take the trait. So you don't get reactionary, or +4 to one skill (assuming it's not a class skill), or +1 to the caster level of a single spell...
How about this, give me a list of traits you think are more powerful than this one. I'd like to see at least 6-8 alternates that are obviously better.
I'll even give you a head start:
birthmark-good benefits that everyone can use, since charm and compulsion are quite common; decent cost in that the DM has a single story hook, but nothing beyond what the trait gives you
reactionary/focused mind/magical knack-probably not one I would have thought of actually, though still a good candidate of the list. Initiative/concentration/caster level boosts are always good, but not used in every situation, so balanced
any of the skill traits-an additional class skill is always nice, but these don't require you to give yourself an achilles' heel; flavor text can be adjusted into a wide variety of stories without unnecessary limitations on them
Any trait dealing with metamagic/crafting magic items-good, but metamagic and crafting are both borked enough already that most DMs tend to homerule those areas anyway, so chances of them being broken are slim to none
armor expert-enough people benefit from it that its likely to be used eventually, but not overpowered in concept or execution
other saving throw modifier traits-they can be situational, but tend to be limited in the ammo you are giving the DM as well, so the cost equals the benefit
the original version of heirloom weapon-mechanically powerful, but with built rp costs that with a DM that is willing to enforce them balance out the mechanical benefits; biggest fault is the +1 trait bonus and the inherent reliance on non-mechanical means to balance mechanical bonuses; could have been put together in a different ways that resolved most of the issues(of which the current version is not one of), but that inherent reliance on non-mechanical checks means that its probably simpler just to ban it if you don't like it rather than try to fight the core aspect of it
Basically, the concept of the heirloom weapon requires a certain amount of mechanical strength that lies somewhere between the original version and the revised version for it to be worthwhile for the cost of tying yourself to a single weapon with dozens of plothooks for the DM. If a free 300 gp and a +1 from masterwork or the chance that someone other than a fighter, barbarian, or ranger might dare to pick up an exotic weapon at level 1 and be effective with it is that big of a game breaker for you, you are better off simply banning the trait, because the concept of the trait is simply more powerful and all encompassing that most trait concepts are, therefore the amount of mechanical strength is inherently going to be higher than most traits.
|
|
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 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.Correct, but it seemed to be compared to the racial abilities of dwarves, elves, half-orcs, and not that alternate half-elf trait. The half-elf trait is, I would say, better than the other weapon traits the other races get, and it is the value of a feat and not appropriate to grant via a trait like Heirloom Weapon.
Hope I got those quotes in order!
Look the point is that to allow a character to start with a weapon and have it grow with them then some special rules are needed.
If you are giving up the usual way of obtaining new, better weapons i.e. Loot and are thus stuck with upgrading one weapon you are going to be behind the curve in mechanical effectiveness. The point of the trait is to even matters up. The original version did so but in certain environments eg the PFS one where Paizo saw the behaviour that lead to the rewrite, the trait did more than even things up.
The current version might appeal to some one looking for a great axe to hand of the apprentice but for someone wanting martial character starting of with the same weapon he finishes with x levels and y upgrades later, the trait doesn't fit the purpose I imagined it was designed for.
W
The best comparison for the original heirloom weapon is campaign traits. They are more powerful, but also draw the character into the campaign in ways that other traits can't. This is the level of power that heirloom weapon was at. It was powerful, but gave the DM a lot more information and ammo to keep the character in check and involved.
|
|
*shrug* you've pretty much painted every single trait as being better than this and I just have to disagree.
As for campaign traits... in Carrion crown I'd have jumped on this trait, as it was I wound up taking one of those +1 caster level traits that ultimately gives me a trivial bonus. Most of the rest of the group took the trait that gave +2 initiative. I'd have loved for my sorcerer(ess) to have a glaive she could use.
I'm not sure where these more powerful role-playing traits are in the campaign traits. I haven't seen a ton of these in Carrion Crown, Serpents Skull. There were some nice ones in Runelords but that was before they were really traits.
Look the point is that to allow a character to start with a weapon and have it grow with them then some special rules are needed.
If you are giving up the usual way of obtaining new, better weapons i.e. Loot and are thus stuck with upgrading one weapon you are going to be behind the curve in mechanical effectiveness. The point of the trait is to even matters up. The original version did so but in certain environments eg the PFS one where Paizo saw the behaviour that lead to the rewrite, the trait did more than even things up.
The current version might appeal to some one looking for a great axe to hand of the apprentice but for someone wanting martial character starting of with the same weapon he finishes with x levels and y upgrades later, the trait doesn't fit the purpose I imagined it was designed for.
W
That is nothing to do with that line of comments about the power of granting a proficiency with a single exotic weapon.
But I also disagree that sticking with a single weapon is that big of a cost. In some campaigns there will be little time to actually upgrade the heirloom weapon, but I would say that traits are not expected to work equally well in each campaign. In my current games, I think there has been only a very small number of times where a character used a weapon they found adventuring and even then they only use it for a session before going back to their primary weapon.
The current Heirloom Weapon isn't great, but I don't think it is that subpar compared to similar traits.
The best comparison for the original heirloom weapon is campaign traits. They are more powerful, but also draw the character into the campaign in ways that other traits can't. This is the level of power that heirloom weapon was at. It was powerful, but gave the DM a lot more information and ammo to keep the character in check and involved.
Campaign traits however give your character a reason to be in a specific campaign. I would say that Heirloom Weapon doesn't do that any better than any other trait. I feel that I could use the fact that a character is an armor expert, how they were bullied, or that they have magical knack about as effectively as if they have an Heirloom Weapon.
Ok just read most of the thread.
I also agree that the previous trait could be (and was) pretty powerfull and needed some tune down i think that they went too far.
Particularly i don't think that the exotic weapon prof needed to be killed, i would also whine about the MW nerf but as a lot of people have said now there is the UM spell MW transformation.
I feel really sorry for PFS players and really hope that a solution is given to your problem.
Now to convince my DM (in a home game) to actually not use the update or let me keep only the exotic weapon or let me just re-do my whole character from the begining because my character is also really boned without EWP bastard sword.
Campaign traits however give your character a reason to be in a specific campaign.
Thats right.
They create a plot hook, and tie the character into the campaign. By making investment into said campaign the GM has an easier time and the player is 'buying in'. Campaign traits are great, LOF free 500gp worth of nifty magic item is a good example and similar to HW, lose the item, still have a 'debt' and a worthless trait.
HW is a campaign trait for campaigns that aren't AP's, because it allows the GM to play the same game.
The best comparison for the original heirloom weapon is campaign traits. They are more powerful, but also draw the character into the campaign in ways that other traits can't. This is the level of power that heirloom weapon was at. It was powerful, but gave the DM a lot more information and ammo to keep the character in check and involved.Campaign traits however give your character a reason to be in a specific campaign. I would say that Heirloom Weapon doesn't do that any better than any other trait. I feel that I could use the fact that a character is an armor expert, how they were bullied, or that they have magical knack about as effectively as if they have an Heirloom Weapon.
Except that with armor expert, or most traits, they are all about the character itself. Rich Parents and Heirloom Weapon are different in that they explicitly mention someone beyond the character that has a notable and definite effect on the character's life. This means that the DM gets more than the immediate hook; the DM also gets at least 2 or 3 other hooks not directly related to the trait in the form of defined family members, a mechanically encoded sense of family duty (or rebellion against such duty, in some cases), and potential rivals, enemies, and allies that the DM can bring into play whenever they choose.
And the kicker is, these can't be avoided, there is no getting around them; even if you don't define specific characters yourself, the DM still has a rough outline to work with based on the assumptions pulled from the trait itself. Other traits don't have to define anything beyond "I was bullied growing up." No need to define by whom or how; a good DM will still find ways to use it, but there is nothing requiring the player to hand the DM any more than very basic information. That is a big difference. It's one thing to know that the DM could create a story around your character you don't like, but didn't contribute to, so you can have legitimate complaints without being hypocritical and something else entirely to be handing over the seeds for potentially unpleasant developments in return for some relatively minor mechanical advantage.
|
|
That is nothing to do with that line of comments about the power of granting a proficiency with a single exotic weapon.
I didn't specifically link it as such. However access to a falchion rather than a great sword or a falcata rather than a rapier is a legit story option so it depends on how unbalancing access to that one special exotic weapon is viewed
But I also disagree that sticking with a single weapon is that big of a cost. In some campaigns there will be little time to actually upgrade the heirloom weapon, but I would say that traits are not expected to work equally well in each campaign. In my current games, I think there has been only a very small number of times where a character used a weapon they found adventuring and even then they only use it for a session before going back to their primary weapon.
Well your experience is different to mine then! Good kit tends to be won rather than built. I bet I am not alone in this but surely neither will you be. Of course in PFS or Living Greyhawk style play the rules are different. In most games though you keep what you take from the cold dead fingers of your hardest foes! Foregoing this resource is a biggie in such campaigns.
The current Heirloom Weapon isn't great, but I don't think it is that subpar compared to similar traits.
There are other traits both better and worse but if the purpose of this is what I've suggested it was the old one with it's flaws managed it, the new one doesn't quite get there.
W
There are other traits both better and worse but if the purpose of this is what I've suggested it was the old one with it's flaws managed it, the new one doesn't quite get there.
W
That is basically where I'm coming from. The new version doesn't accomplish the purpose of the original version. It can still be valid in some cases, but they have completely changed the concept behind it and the way it is likely to actually be used. That's not errata, that's completely rewriting the entire trait, which is something is not likely to be received well, even if the intentions behind the rewrite are pure. They could have just as easily left the original trait alone, and wrote 2 or 3 new traits, each of which focused on a specific part of the original one. It would have accomplished the same goal, but with much less rancor.
|
|
For what it is worth this is what I reckon we'd need.
A means whereby a PC can have a weapon from creation that he can
a) use
b) upgrade
c) Gives them a mechanical quid pro quo for opting to decline new & better kit but upgrade this single weapon.
The problem lies when the PC wouldn't want the kit it finds as either it is worse or just not found at all. So then it is all rather too good forth cost of a single trait
I would have replaced actual MW status with one that gives no bonus but is still enchantable probably at a premium cost. I would offer proficiency and some combat bonus. It is the degree of that bonus that I am still not sure about. In a world where your colleagues are finding weapons far far better than you can afford to upgrade to then the old +1 works. When they are not (again like PFS) it is too much. On balance I would allow the weapon to be exotic but I can see why it is a bonus without much balance.
W
|
I might be on my own here, but I firmly believe the following:
TRAITS WERE DESIGNED TO BE BUILT AROUND.
There.
I said it.
We all talk about character back stories etc, Traits were a way of giving those bits of back story a little meaningful bite. They added a bit of crunch to the flavour, and the basis on which excellent 'characters' could be built (as opposed to nameless statsblocks).
If a player said "I want to take this heirloom weapon of my fallen fathers and commit to a build with it going forward and through the campaign" then I have no problem with him building his character around the weapon and spending all his free money from thios point forward building on it.
I admit, like anything, some people are going to take it to extremes, but we have thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
Now we have one more ho-hum meaningless trait instead of potential RP gold, good for both player AND gm.
Stupid.
The RP potential is still there even without the trait.
Spend the GP to get a masterwork weapon at the start of your career.Say that it is the weapon your great-grandfather used at the battle of Durkon Hills.
Pronto, you have your flavour and your upgradable weapon.
The point is that you want a low cost masterwork weapon plus a extra benefit and want to explain that as "flavour".
For msot character the equipment with which they start is what they were capable to scrounge at home, get from friends and parents and so on. Only a minimal part of the initial wealth was really cash.
The RP potential is still there even without the trait.
Spend the GP to get a masterwork weapon at the start of your career.
Say that it is the weapon your great-grandfather used at the battle of Durkon Hills.
Pronto, you have your flavour and your upgradable weapon.The point is that you want a low cost masterwork weapon plus a extra benefit and want to explain that as "flavour".
Or take 'Rich Parents' and go buy a M/work weapon and a M/work suit of armour to go with it.
TOTALLY different RP hook though isn't it.
So no, your suggestion doesn't really work out as viable, and really doesn't achieve the same thing.
Saying this is just about an m/work weapon is a bit spurious at this point, especially when the argument has already been covered off.
|
|
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.
Old version advantage: +1 forever, stackable with anything.
It will never become obsolete, it will never become nil.
Trying the "it mean nothing after 3rd level" card sound like "they are taking away my powerful toys", not like "I am interested in role playing my background".
Sorry, but I am not sympathetic to arguments that downplay a very real mechanical advantage.
It will never become obsolete, it will never become nil.
Trying the "it mean nothing after 3rd level" card sound like "they are taking away my powerful toys", not like "I am interested in role playing my background".
Sorry, but I am not sympathetic to arguments that downplay a very real mechanical advantage.
Unless the weapon is lost, damaged, or no longer being used.
Your +2 Initiative works on regardless, and cannot be taken away, and stacks with everything. No downside.
Or take 'Rich Parents' and go buy a M/work weapon and a M/work suit of armour to go with it.
TOTALLY different RP hook though isn't it.
So no, your suggestion doesn't really work out as viable, and really doesn't achieve the same thing.
Saying this is just about an m/work weapon is a bit spurious at this point, especially when the argument has already been covered off.
No it does the very same thing from a story stand point. You got an item handed down from your family.
Again you are using a change in crunch that does not effect fluff and claiming incorrectly it does.
|
|
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.
I disagree. As soon as you can buy a +2 weapon, a magic weapon where you chose the bonuses you apply to the weapon is generally better than a found weapon even if it has a lesser enchantment.
What would you prefer? A found +1 cold burst weapon or a constructed +1 bane against a well chose opponent?
A +4 weapon or a +1 holy?
Especially when you can buy a greater magic weapon wand and get a friend to give it a higher plus if needed (or even better get the friend to cast the spell by hand).
Again you are using a change in crunch that does not effect fluff and claiming incorrectly it does.
Except that taking RP is NOT allowed in PFS.
So that avenue doesn't exist does it?
Where HW added value was that you could use the weapon, proficiency in THAT UNIQUE weapon (Simp/Mart/Exo) and masterwork at issue would have been a better trait change, I am not so interested in the +1 guff. The +1 trait bonus would end up stacking with M/work, but if it was simply a M/work weapon then that would be less powered and a better move.
Especially when you can buy a greater magic weapon wand and get a friend to give it a higher plus if needed (or even better get the friend to cast the spell by hand).
Except you will be selling items at a reduced price to pay full price for upgrades.
And who is this friend always around to give it all these plusses?
Again you are using a change in crunch that does not effect fluff and claiming incorrectly it does.Except that taking RP is NOT allowed in PFS.
So that avenue doesn't exist does it?
Where HW added value was that you could use the weapon, proficiency in THAT UNIQUE weapon (Simp/Mart/Exo) and masterwork at issue would have been a better trait change, I am not so interested in the +1 guff. The +1 trait bonus would end up stacking with M/work, but if it was simply a M/work weapon then that would be less powered and a better move.
So take the trait. It allows you a weapon, it does not allow a masterwork weapon. Hell skip the trait, call the weapon you are using "master work" save up you gold buy the game effect and act like it was the same weapon the whole time.
There Fluff issue totally solved. But then your argument has zero to do with fluff or backstory and everything to do with crunch.
|
|
Especially when you can buy a greater magic weapon wand and get a friend to give it a higher plus if needed (or even better get the friend to cast the spell by hand).Except you will be selling items at a reduced price to pay full price for upgrades.
And who is this friend always around to give it all these plusses?
Have you even noticed that my example weapons have purposefully one less level of enhancement than the found weapon?
The problem is that the found weapon can be a rapier when you use a greatsword or a glaive.
You normally sell the loot because you want the kind of weapon you want, with the enhancement you want.
Getting the right weapon with the bonuses you want is a gift from the GM, not a standard event.
Except that taking RP is NOT allowed in PFS.
...
...
There Fluff issue totally solved. But then your argument has zero to do with fluff or backstory and everything to do with crunch.
He has started saying that he is not interested in PFS, now it is all about PFS.
I think his reasons to hat e the change are very clear, even if he denies them.
So take the trait. It allows you a weapon, it does not allow a masterwork weapon. Hell skip the trait, call the weapon you are using "master work" save up you gold buy the game effect and act like it was the same weapon the whole time.
Taking the 'effect' later in game is going to see you more out of pocket, as you will need to pay 300 AND the extra to hire the caster.
Similarly, the Trait has removed Exotics as well, which is unresolved.
Your argument has everything to do with crunch, and nothing to do with RP or Story.
HW is a campaign trait for campaigns that aren't AP's, because it allows the GM to play the same game.
I disagree. A campaign trait give a reason what your character is doing in the adventure/why they are continuing to adventure. While the heirloom weapon trait can be used to do that with additional GM effort, I would say that most traits are like that and allow hooks to attach a character to a campaign.
Except that with armor expert, or most traits, they are all about the character itself. Rich Parents and Heirloom Weapon are different in that they explicitly mention someone beyond the character that has a notable and definite effect on the character's life. This means that the DM gets more than the immediate hook; the DM also gets at least 2 or 3 other hooks not directly related to the trait in the form of defined family members, a mechanically encoded sense of family duty (or rebellion against such duty, in some cases), and potential rivals, enemies, and allies that the DM can bring into play whenever they choose.
And the kicker is, these can't be avoided, there is no getting around them; even if you don't define specific characters yourself, the DM still has a rough outline to work with based on the assumptions pulled from the trait itself. Other traits don't have to define anything beyond "I was bullied growing up." No need to define by whom or how; a good DM will still find ways to use it, but there is nothing requiring the player to hand the DM any more than very basic information. That is a big difference. It's one thing to know that the DM could create a story around your character you don't like, but didn't contribute to, so you can have legitimate...
Actually, I would say that you are wrong about armor expert. In the middle of the trait it talks about the knight you were a squire to or there was a hero that you were intending to emulate.
But that doesn't really matter because giving the GM more hooks to tie into your character isn't a penalty on a trait. It is entirely a bonus in the favor of your character. If a villain may have grown from your back story, that is a new way your character ties into the campaign and becomes part of it. If your character didn't have that hook, then you probably would be fighting similar challenges of the same difficulty, they just wouldn't be there because of your character.
Well your experience is different to mine then! Good kit tends to be won rather than built. I bet I am not alone in this but surely neither will you be.
I agree there. I suspect that there are plenty of games where the heirloom weapon wouldn't be a good choice just because of the limited opportunities to upgrade it. However, I don't think it is fair to judge and balance the power of the trait by the campaign that it does worst in (No time to upgrade magic items. More powerful items appear often enough.) because then the resulting trait would just be too powerful in the campaign that it would do best in. (Plentiful time to upgrade magical items. All loot it sold at the end of session.)
In that case, I would suggest that if the heirloom weapon trait doesn't work in your campaign for some reason, to boost it to compensate.
Taking the 'effect' later in game is going to see you more out of pocket, as you will need to pay 300 AND the extra to hire the caster.
Similarly, the Trait has removed Exotics as well, which is unresolved.
Your argument has everything to do with crunch, and nothing to do with RP or Story.
Nope I gave you a few ways to keep your back story, Hell you can carry around a weapon you can not use if it fits the back story. Then you moaned over crunch and made the same false claim.
So i gave you to simple ways to keep the backstory and still get a magical weapon by a set level.
If your story is you have trained your whole life with weapon x so you are really good with it, take the feat.
If your story is your weapon has been passed down in your family for ages, no crunch is ever needed there.
You simply care not for back story or this would not be an issue. Pure and simple you care for the crunch and are still falsely claiming it to be a fluff issue.
There Fluff issue totally solved. But then your argument has zero to do with fluff or backstory and everything to do with crunch.
I'm glad you enjoy completely separating the two things. The whole point of traits is to tie the two together, and heirloom weapon especially does so, or at least did. Now, it fails to do do so.
Taking the 'effect' later in game is going to see you more out of pocket, as you will need to pay 300 AND the extra to hire the caster.
Similarly, the Trait has removed Exotics as well, which is unresolved.
Your argument has everything to do with crunch, and nothing to do with RP or Story.
Nope I gave you a few ways to keep your back story, Hell you can carry around a weapon you can not use if it fits the back story. Then you moaned over crunch and made the same false claim.
So i gave you to simple ways to keep the backstory and still get a magical weapon by a set level.
If your story is you have trained your whole life with weapon x so you are really good with it, take the feat.
If your story is your weapon has been passed down in your family for ages, no crunch is ever needed there.
You simply care not for back story or this would not be an issue. Pure and simple you care for the crunch and are still falsely claiming it to be a fluff issue.
Based on your arguments, you probably need to ban all traits entirely, because the whole point of them is to tie fluff and crunch together. Some traits give only minor mechanical bonuses, but require little fluff; others give strong mechanical bonuses, but also require strong fluff to support it. Heirloom Weapon was definitely one of the stronger ones, and should only be allowed if the DM is willing to take the work required to properly incorporate it. The new version, while not completely terrible, tries to do something completely different from the original one, therefore, you have to expect a fair bit of consternation as it more than a minor change for a lot of characters.
There Fluff issue totally solved. But then your argument has zero to do with fluff or backstory and everything to do with crunch.I'm glad you enjoy completely separating the two things. The whole point of traits is to tie the two together, and heirloom weapon especially does so, or at least did. Now, it fails to do do so.
And if it was not so heavily abused it would have never been changed. If your background hinged on abusing a clearly powerful trait then yes you are screwed as you gamed a bug and the bug got fixed.
If however you are interested in the back story that can easily be salvaged in a number of ways. Taints back story can be changed or modified easy.
The only folks really hurting here are those who used it to get a free exotic weapon feat. Those people are simply screwed, and will have to change, but you can keep the back story just change the weapon to something else.
it simply has little real impact if the story and not the advantage it gave you is the thing you are worried about.
Actually, I would say that you are wrong about armor expert. In the middle of the trait it talks about the knight you were a squire to or there was a hero that you were intending to emulate.
Where does it say you have to emulate anyone. You can, but there is nothing stopping you saying that it was entirely for survival, and go hang the effects anybody else had in your decision. Unlike with heirloom weapon where the second someone finds out it's an heirloom weapon, they can instantly assign a set of assumptions about the personality and behavior of your character based on how they found out, how effected they are by it, and their own personal views on such matters. Most traits the NPCs cant react that quickly or that definitely because they are straight forward and usually easy enough to hide if you really feel like it. Heirloom Weapon is at the level of campaign traits where you are tying the character into the world, whether you intended to or not. That character now comes from a very specific place and class and people can react to it accordingly. Armor expert has so many explanations that unless you tell someone your specific story, it would be very hard to make any assumptions based on knowledge of the trait itself.
And if it was not so heavily abused it would have never been changed. If your background hinged on abusing a clearly powerful trait then yes you are screwed as you gamed a bug and the bug got fixed.
If however you are interested in the back story that can easily be salvaged in a number of ways. Taints back story can be changed or modified easy.
The only folks really hurting here are those who used it to get a free exotic weapon feat. Those people are simply screwed, and will have to change, but you can keep the back story just change the weapon to something else.
it simply has little real impact if the story and not the advantage it gave you is the thing you are worried about.
I disagree on the impact the change has. If the change had only been removing or reworking the +1 trait bonus, then the impact would be minimal. As it is, I see too many people screaming "you never should have picked the spiked chain/falcata/other exotic weapon in the first place, you bloody, cheesy, powergamer you" without thinking about the stories enable by being able to use a rare weapon from the start without having to worry about a dissonance between fluff and rules. I understand you don't think that fluff has to be tied to rules, and for some things it doesn't, but when what is written on the character sheet directly contradicts the story you are trying to tell, it becomes a problem.
Blaming the abuse on the trait itself when the abuse comes from other mechanics that suddenly had their weaknesses amplified is lazy. The trait itself was fine except for the extra +1, but people made it a scapegoat for all of the other problems that exist in the system because it's much easier simply to make those problems small enough to be ignored instead of trying to fix the actual problems.
|
|
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.
I disagree. As soon as you can buy a +2 weapon, a magic weapon where you chose the bonuses you apply to the weapon is generally better than a found weapon even if it has a lesser enchantment.
What would you prefer? A found +1 cold burst weapon or a constructed +1 bane against a well chose opponent?
A +4 weapon or a +1 holy?Especially when you can buy a greater magic weapon wand and get a friend to give it a higher plus if needed (or even better get the friend to cast the spell by hand).
Well you are free to disagree!! In some cases you would be wrong in others correct. It depends on the campaign you play in.
In a world where the GM ensures that the kit you win isn't better than the stuff you can have made for you (or even by you) then sure.
The weapons you list all have their charms but if you get the choice to build ones as good as the ones you take from the boss's corpse then of course that is preferable!!! That's not the point.
My experience has been that generally the kit you find would cost more than you tend to have available to spend on upgrades. I accept that even with fewer funds a well made weapon is "better" than a high cost badly thought out one. I doubt that is going to be the usual choice though.
If I was sufficiently concerned (and I am not) I could analyse even just commerical offerings to see if players tend to have enough cash to build stuff as good as they find. Certainly this used not to be the case but perhaps in recent years writers try to restrict their creative palette by only making stuff no cooler than the funds they make available would allow the players to make.
I will be frank: I will take some convincing that the stuff you can make will really rival the value of the stuff you find in the majority of games. I realise having started back in the 1970's means I was playing 20 odd years before crafting reached the table but I have never noticed an increase in the amount of cash that would suggest that DMs are happy to let players decided what the coolest loot is.
TTFN
W
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope that at some point, someone will wake up and realize that exotic weapons won't get fixed until enough people are willing to play with them that actual solutions can be tested. As it stands, most of them are not worth a feat and barely worth a trait.
|
|
Oh and in light of more recent posts....
If presented with the choice of enchanting your masterwork longsword or using the +2 one you took from the boss what do you do? Sell it split the takings up 5 five ways and wait until you have enough cash or use the new one and let the mage keep the cool bracers the next victim "bequeaths" the party. I don't see liquidating all magic and dividing it's worth to allow the slow build up bespoke magic items meaning that the party would be as well "tooled up" as an indentical party that just used the kit it grabs. Slowly you might get a bespoke item built but you run the risk of a better one dropping from the GMs imagination. Normally this is all good, sell the original and motor onwards. Not so if your raison d'etre is linked to this special sword.
Just a thought.
W
I just hope that at some point, someone will wake up and realize that exotic weapons won't get fixed until enough people are willing to play with them that actual solutions can be tested. As it stands, most of them are not worth a feat and barely worth a trait.
As you say there. Some are worth a feat and some are not. I would say that because of this, the solution is not to grant a trait that gives proficiency with any exotic weapon (even those worth a feat). I am fine with giving exotic weapon proficiency through traits, but only if the traits give certain weapons you can be proficient with ("You gain proficiency with spiked chain.") rather than just saying that you can choose any weapon to gain proficiency with.
That way there would be a reasonable way to get the weaker exotic weapons without automatically giving the most powerful exotic weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just hope that at some point, someone will wake up and realize that exotic weapons won't get fixed until enough people are willing to play with them that actual solutions can be tested. As it stands, most of them are not worth a feat and barely worth a trait.As you say there. Some are worth a feat and some are not. I would say that because of this, the solution is not to grant a trait that gives proficiency with any exotic weapon (even those worth a feat). I am fine with giving exotic weapon proficiency through traits, but only if the traits give certain weapons you can be proficient with ("You gain proficiency with spiked chain.") rather than just saying that you can choose any weapon to gain proficiency with.
That way there would be a reasonable way to get the weaker exotic weapons without automatically giving the most powerful exotic weapons.
Or you could maybe, I don't know, fix the weapons, and leave the trait alone, since that is where the problem is. Trying to fix the messenger to tell you only what you want to hear doesn't actually solve anything.
Official errata was just released for the Heirloom Weapon trait.
Replace the Heirloom Weapon entry with the following text: “Heirloom Weapon: You carry a non-masterwork simple or martial weapon that has been passed down from generation to generation in your family (pay the standard gp cost for the weapon). When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits: proficiency with that specific weapon, a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity with that specific weapon, or a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon.”
Please discuss whether you think this change to be good, bad, balanced, unbalanced, etc. I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
It made an already borderline trap option into a 100% trap option with no real benefit at all. It now reeks of uselessness.
It made an already borderline trap option into a 100% trap option with no real benefit at all. It now reeks of uselessness.
My god, I just agreed with Ashiel on something.
It made an already borderline trap option into a 100% trap option with no real benefit at all. It now reeks of uselessness.My god, I just agreed with Ashiel on something.
I was thinking the same thing. This is scary.
Or you could maybe, I don't know, fix the weapons, and leave the trait alone, since that is where the problem is. Trying to fix the messenger to tell you only what you want to hear doesn't actually solve anything.
Do you mean make it so that no exotic weapon is worth taking a feat for? That would be fine as well for allowing a trait to select any weapon, but I doubt the uproar from that change would be less dramatic than what has happened for this one single trait.
I'm not sure where to go if the pre-errata trait is described as a "borderline trap option" when I would say that it was one of the most beneficial traits available and how the post errata version has "no real benefit at all" when I still see the limited benefits that it grants. I thought the trait prior was over-powered and that while the revised version may be a bit below the trait average, it still is roughly in the area that typical traits reside in.
So maybe I do this:Heirloom Weapon: You start with a MW Weapon. You gain one of the following benefits:
1. Proficiency with that type of weapon aka longsword, longspear, or even an exotic weapon.
2. If you are already proficient from a source other than this trait, you gain a +1 trait bonus to CMD and CMB when using this weapon to perform maneuvers it is capable of performing due to familiarity with the weapon.
1: Free 300 gold for masterwork
2: Free Feat
3: A normal trait level bonusThat's just as broken as it was before.
The main thing is, this trait was horribly broken as it was. It quickly became the go-to trait, with builds built around it. That's the first indication that something was wrong. With the changes, it is now about average with all the other traits, not the best, and not the worst. It was never going to be pretty with the fix, and those that built characters around it will be doubly upset.
Free Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat is overpowered since Power Gamers will abuse it.
The other part I think it is appropriate.
I am not seeing the weakness of relying on that ONE (someone even emphasized how weak they thought it was) weapon, ummmmm don't all PC's rely on their one weapon? your only going to have enough cash for one +3 flaming weapon (or two +2 frost or whatever for TWF).
Now through some reason or another you lose it (like the apparent crippling weakness of heirloom weapon), okay now what? you buy another longsword? Good luck with that mundane weapon, your exactly where you would be if you lost the heirloom.
Now through some reason or another you lose it (like the apparent crippling weakness of heirloom weapon), okay now what? you buy another longsword? Good luck with that mundane weapon, your exactly where you would be if you lost the heirloom.
Well you could buy another Longsword, whether mundane or magic, and carry on.
Lost the Heirloom? Sorry.
On that note, they placed a GOOD negative in the 'Finding Haleen' trait, and that was you got your nice item, but if it was lost or wrecked you took a -1 Will save for a YEAR.
Would have been good on Heirloom weapon.