| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free Exotic Weapon Proficiency feat is overpowered since Power Gamers will abuse it.
Here's a thought, maybe fix the exotic weapons so that non power gamers will feel they are worth a feat, but power gamers won't feel like they are the route to uber cheese. People keep complaining about exotic weapons, but all they want to do is cut off access, they don't want to fix the actual problem.
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.
Yes your sh**y mundane longsword will do you just fine, I can see that going well. /sarcasm
The only extra you lose from losing the heirloom is the +1 you didn't have on a regular longsword anyway. (and possibly the role-playing gold of getting it back/breaking the bad news).
Yes your sh**y mundane longsword will do you just fine, I can see that going well. /sarcasm
When you got to the level of a mundane swords 'not cutting it', then you'd have had money for a magical replacement wouldn't you?
The only extra you lose from losing the heirloom is the +1 you didn't have on a regular longsword anyway. (and possibly the role-playing gold of getting it back/breaking the bad news).
Not always true though is it?
With HW you got the skill to use the weapon in the first place, and that weapon may (or may not) have been exotic to boot.In this case the exotic is removed.
And quite possibly the underlying proficiency for a non-martial character.
Anyhow I can see this whole debate is a religious one.
The rollplayers hate it.
The roleplayers love it.
The cheezemunchkins broke it.
the devs nerfed it with zeal.
Now no one will take it.
|
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.
That if the heirloom weapon is:
a) noticeable;
b) distinctive enough to be recognized.
So, if the heirloom weapon is a falchion with the symbol of the Bloody Eye orc tribe on the blade, it say that you or one of your forefathers fought members of the Bloody Eye tribe and won (or was a member of the tribe)and that your family is from the area where the Bloody Eyes tribe roam.
If it is a rapier, masterwork or not, it may say way less. You can be a descendant of the Sunshadow fencing school or simply someone that has taken fencing lesson there in his youth.
On the other hand if the weapon has the blazon of the Sunshadow family on the hilt and the typical basket design used by the student of the school it say a lot.
But the difference is born from your willingness to role play and you decision to specify some detail, not from the mechanics of the trait.
The mechanics can help and probably this change has been a bit too much, but it hasn't destroyed the RP value of the trait, it has reduced the mechanical advantage.
The difference is that with something like bullied, if they find out you were bullied, they probably aren't going to make any particular assumptions about you. There are simply too many ways to react to that for any one cause or reaction to be expected. If they find out you are carrying an heirloom, certain assumptions about your character can be made even if you are 1000 miles away from home; things like how you stand with your family and how you are likely to treat others in various situations may be derived. Even if certain details not shared render such assumptions inaccurate, the assumptions will still be made.
|
|
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.
Some stuff you find is better, but that is not the general rule unless your master is really benevolent (excessively I would say).
The 10 6th level drow mooks will not have one weapon with a +4 enhancement between all of them, casually exactly the kind of weapon your fighter use, because your party is 12th level and a +4 weapon will be useful for them.
They will have 10 +1 rapiers, 10 +1 daggers and 10 +1 chain shirts that you will sell for 25.000 gp, almost enough to buy the +4 weapon you want or more than enough for your spellcaster to enchant it (if he has the feat).
There are situations where it will not be possible to do that: megadungeons, adventures in far away lands and so on, but from 3.0 onward the concept has been that you can buy enchanted stuff with ease.
Even in 1rst and 2nd edition, where enchanting a item was very hard, a large percentage of the magic gear you did found was sold, given to henchmen or traded away in exchange for stuff you needed.
One protection ring was indispensable, the second a nice back up, but you had no use for the third.
BTW. getting the magic items crafting feats will allow you to build stuff for half cost and a few weeks of enchanting.
BTW. getting the magic items crafting feats will allow you to build stuff for half cost and a few weeks of enchanting.
But why should the party Wizzy have to spend HIS Feats in order for me to get my cheap items?
|
|
But why should the party Wizzy have to spend HIS Feats in order for me to get my cheap items?
BTW. getting the magic items crafting feats will allow you to build stuff for half cost and a few weeks of enchanting.
Because he gets his cheap items that way. Nothing say he will or should take the feats you want.
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.
"Change all exoic weapons so that hey are better than the martial weapons".
The powergamer solution.
Because he gets his cheap items that way. Nothing say he will or should take the feats you want.
Exactly, so assuming there will always be an avenue for 'half price magic items' is erroneous.
So we are back to having to base it on status quo = full price upgrades.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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.Hope I got those quotes in order!
Except for that being written as a reply to me, and not by me, you did great ;-)
I also think that the 'the Powergamers will abuse it' comment I see floating around is a non-starter. 'The Powergamers' will abuse anything.
Should we nerf persistent spell because the powergamers will abuse it?
Should we nerf the cleric, because the power gamers will abuse it? etc. etc.
saying 'X is broken because Y will break it' isn't the best argument. 0gre above points out people switching to playing elves/half orcs/half elves for the weapon proficiencies. That's multiple WPs for the better weapons in the game (Oh no... We'd better nerf half orcs because the power gamers will break them!) That's why I think making the feat read like the racial trait works. It's not ideal for everyone, but it's nice.
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."Change all exoic weapons so that hey are better than the martial weapons".
The powergamer solution.
No it isn't or rather it doesn't has to be.
You know since almost everyone has to spend a feat for any exotic weapon, i think that they should get a benefit for spending one of their feats right?
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."Change all exoic weapons so that hey are better than the martial weapons".
The powergamer solution.No it isn't or rather it doesn't has to be.
You know since almost everyone has to spend a feat for any exotic weapon, i think that they should get a benefit for spending one of their feats right?
Personally, my solution would be to fix the whole simple/martial/exotic scheme. Most of the exotic weapons don't need to be exotic, they could be simple or martial just as easily without breaking anything.
On that i agree.
I didn't read the entire thread about this, but the spell Masterwork Transmutation turns a weapon into a different, better weapon. The spell may use the same weapon as a base weapon, but it's not the same exact weapon. Heirloom Weapon refers to a specific weapon made of non-masterwork quality. If that weapon somehow becomes masterwork, it's a different weapon.
Look at it a different way -- let's say you paint a painting. Someone can't come along and turn your painting into a masterwork. And even if they could, it wouldn't be a painting explicitly by you.
Even the text of the spell implies that the new weapon isn't the exact same weapon (equal to) -- but equivalent.
You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent.In fact, if you use Masterwork Transmutation on your Heirloom Weapon, you should never be able to benefit from the trait.False.
The spell turns a regular longsword into its masterwork equivalent: a masterwork longsword. It's still the same weapon, just with the masterwork quality.
Interesting. . . so the greatest swordmaker in the world could not add a masterwork component on to a non-masterwork weapon (not by the craft skill at least), but this spell can. It's a bit gamist to assume that the masterwork component is an add-on to an item -- when really the item has to be designed from the ground up to be of masterwork quality.
Interesting. . . so the greatest swordmaker in the world could not add a masterwork component on to a non-masterwork weapon (not by the craft skill at least), but this spell can. It's a bit gamist to assume that the masterwork component is an add-on to an item -- when really the item has to be designed from the ground up to be of masterwork quality.
As I laid a few posts after the one you quoted, I'd be fine with a skilled craftsman mundanely "reforging" a weapon into masterwork quality. It's really a needless limitation in the game.
Interesting. . . so the greatest swordmaker in the world could not add a masterwork component on to a non-masterwork weapon (not by the craft skill at least), but this spell can. It's a bit gamist to assume that the masterwork component is an add-on to an item -- when really the item has to be designed from the ground up to be of masterwork quality.I didn't read the entire thread about this, but the spell Masterwork Transmutation turns a weapon into a different, better weapon. The spell may use the same weapon as a base weapon, but it's not the same exact weapon. Heirloom Weapon refers to a specific weapon made of non-masterwork quality. If that weapon somehow becomes masterwork, it's a different weapon.
Look at it a different way -- let's say you paint a painting. Someone can't come along and turn your painting into a masterwork. And even if they could, it wouldn't be a painting explicitly by you.
Even the text of the spell implies that the new weapon isn't the exact same weapon (equal to) -- but equivalent.
You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent.In fact, if you use Masterwork Transmutation on your Heirloom Weapon, you should never be able to benefit from the trait.False.
The spell turns a regular longsword into its masterwork equivalent: a masterwork longsword. It's still the same weapon, just with the masterwork quality.
The problem is that you are assuming the craft skill is exclusive instead of inclusive. There is nothing saying that a craftsman cannot improve an existing item to function better. It just does not provide rules for doing so. It is up to the GM to decide. The rules cannot include specifics for everything.
I was at an SCA event talking with a sword smith a few months back. He was discussing how taking someone else's knife (hand forged) and redoing the temper on it. The orriginal blade was given an extremely hard edge that had slowly worn away, and he was having difficulty sharpening it with a traditional whetstone. The smith offered to redo the temper on the blade.
I see reforging a masterwork weapon in this vein. You use your skill to rework the problems out of the sword. Perhaps the temper is wrong or it has some internal cracks, and it needs a new heat treatment. Perhaps the ballance is off, and some added weight to the handle will make it better. There is no reason not to allow a player to have a weapon reforged in this way. It makes sense. Its just not 100% covered by the rules.
Well, good to know!
Considering you can add on masterwork to an item, I guess the changes to heirloom weapon are pretty balanced. You can still be an elf rogue and use it to get elven-curved blade proficiency. . . or half-orc rogue with chain fighter to get spiked chain proficiency.
The problem is that you are assuming the craft skill is exclusive instead of inclusive. There is nothing saying that a craftsman cannot improve an existing item to function better. It just does not provide rules for doing so. It is up to the GM to decide. The rules cannot include specifics for everything.
Well, I decided that when you design something to be masterful, you can't slap on good design after you built it. Your example with redoing the blade may make a problem sword a decent sword, but it's different to design a great sword from the beginning. That's why it takes so long to make a Japanese katana.
Interesting. . . so the greatest swordmaker in the world could not add a masterwork component on to a non-masterwork weapon (not by the craft skill at least), but this spell can. It's a bit gamist to assume that the masterwork component is an add-on to an item -- when really the item has to be designed from the ground up to be of masterwork quality.As I laid a few posts after the one you quoted, I'd be fine with a skilled craftsman mundanely "reforging" a weapon into masterwork quality. It's really a needless limitation in the game.
If you ever get around and errta this, think about including an errata that allows you to upgrade a composite bow.
The problem is that you are assuming the craft skill is exclusive instead of inclusive. There is nothing saying that a craftsman cannot improve an existing item to function better. It just does not provide rules for doing so. It is up to the GM to decide. The rules cannot include specifics for everything.Well, I decided that when you design something to be masterful, you can't slap on good design after you built it. Your example with redoing the blade may make a problem sword a decent sword, but it's different to design a great sword from the beginning. That's why it takes so long to make a Japanese katana.
And yet I have heard stories about resmithing a katana into a new one. Reforging it, and making a new masterpiece, while still considering it the same weapon.
When you got to the level of a mundane swords 'not cutting it', then you'd have had money for a magical replacement wouldn't you?
Um no, because the that 32,000 gold sword is still eating into your wealth by level, unless you want to sell most of your stuff you have to wait until you start getting gold from next level to replace your sword, which means you can't buy other cool things.
Not always true though is it?
With HW you got the skill to use the weapon in the first place, and that weapon may (or may not) have been exotic to boot.In this case the exotic is removed.
And quite possibly the underlying proficiency for a non-martial character.
If your at the level where your enchanting it you'll already have grabbed proficiency, so no, under very very narrow circumstance would losing it lose you proficiency.
When you got to the level of a mundane swords 'not cutting it', then you'd have had money for a magical replacement wouldn't you?
Um no, because the that 32,000 gold sword is still eating into your wealth by level, unless you want to sell most of your stuff you have to wait until you start getting gold from next level to replace your sword, which means you can't buy other cool things.
If your at the level where your enchanting it you'll already have grabbed proficiency, so no, under very very narrow circumstance would losing it lose you proficiency.Not always true though is it?
With HW you got the skill to use the weapon in the first place, and that weapon may (or may not) have been exotic to boot.In this case the exotic is removed.
And quite possibly the underlying proficiency for a non-martial character.
No, you will have had the option to grab the profficiency. You will not necessarily have the profficiency. There is a difference. The 3/4 BAB classes are feat starved enough without needing to spend one on this too.
And yet I have heard stories about resmithing a katana into a new one. Reforging it, and making a new masterpiece, while still considering it the same weapon.
/shrug I guess it's splitting hairs over whether the resultant item is a new item or a repair of an existing item. You can't slap on quality. You build it from the beginning on just about anything.
We've got an official answer, so I'll leave it at that.
|
And yet I have heard stories about resmithing a katana into a new one. Reforging it, and making a new masterpiece, while still considering it the same weapon./shrug I guess it's splitting hairs over whether the resultant item is a new item or a repair of an existing item. You can't slap on quality. You build it from the beginning on just about anything.
We've got an official answer, so I'll leave it at that.
Eh... If you mend a sword that has been shattered in two is it the same sword or a repair of an existing one? I would argue that you can't really 'repair' a shattered sword and it essentially has to be reforged yet this trope is a fairly commonly used fantasy trope.
Anyhow, I realize you aren't arguing the point, just wanted to point out it isn't unheard of in the genre.
I would suggest that the reason there are no rules for reforging something as masterwork is largely because other than this oddball case there has never been a need for it in normal play. Now we have a spell and Sean's suggestion that it's a valid use of the craft skill which covers it pretty well.
No, you will have had the option to grab the profficiency. You will not necessarily have the profficiency. There is a difference. The 3/4 BAB classes are feat starved enough without needing to spend one on this too.
Ohhhh, I thought you wanted to be good with the weapon, okay then you don't need proficiency in the first place, what are you arguing again?
|
|
No it isn't or rather it doesn't has to be.
You know since almost everyone has to spend a feat for any exotic weapon, i think that they should get a benefit for spending one of their feats right?
Actually, it's pretty safe to say that the majority of characters who use exotic weapons don't use any feats on them. Instead they access them via class features or racial features. It's a nice way of making exotic weapons less common and make each race/ class have their own unique flavor. So in general, exotics should be better than martial weapons but don't need to be 'worth' spending a feat.
Dwarven Waraxe
Elven Curved Sword
Whip (Bards)
Hand Crossbow (Rogues)
Repeating Crossbows and hand crossbows (Inquisitors)
Exotic weapons make choices unique by limiting access to their signature weapons.
Some exotics should get require a feat, Aldori Dueling sword for example is well worth a feat and you shouldn't be able to cheat and get easy access to it.
Ohhhh, I thought you wanted to be good with the weapon, okay then you don't need proficiency in the first place, what are you arguing again?
No, you will have had the option to grab the profficiency. You will not necessarily have the profficiency. There is a difference. The 3/4 BAB classes are feat starved enough without needing to spend one on this too.
They had profficiency before. Now they do not because one of the abilities they were relying on changed.
They had proficiency before. Now they do not because one of the abilities they were relying on changed.
Well they don't need it, they have no intention of being good with the weapon.
Well they don't need it, they have no intention of being good with the weapon.
Yet they did have that intention, hence buying the trait to be good with THAT weapon. They did not intend, however, to be good with ALL weapons of that type.
Big difference.
Yet they did have that intention, hence buying the trait to be good with THAT weapon. They did not intend, however, to be good with ALL weapons of that type.
Big difference.
So your saying "I really don't want to spend a feat, can't I just be proficient with the weapon I'll be using for the rest of my adventuring career?"
Most munchkins are a bit more subtle.
So your saying "I really don't want to spend a feat, can't I just be proficient with the weapon I'll be using for the rest of my adventuring career?"
"I really don't want to spend a feat, so for HALF A FEAT can't I just be proficient with THAT ONE weapon I'll be using for the rest of my adventuring career on the proviso that if I lose (via any means) that ONE WEAPON I have forgone the trait altogether as opposed to being able to simply acquire another one?"
There, I fixed it for you.
Oh wait... that derails your veiled insult :(
|
|
"I really don't want to spend a feat, so for HALF A FEAT can't I just be proficient with THAT ONE weapon I'll be using for the rest of my adventuring career on the proviso that if something vastly improbable happens I have forgone the trait altogether as opposed to being able to simply acquire another one?"
Fixed it for you.
Depends on your GM though, doesn't it?
Seems like a lot of people must have Care Bear GM's to be honest :)
Similarly, the GM will be using you as a plot hook, which invariably results in some discomfort for you.
To be honest though, sounds like you guys really don't want to hear it; if its 'fun'/not on your personal 'approved' then it is too good and should be banned.
What is it like living in a world without colour and laughter?
|
|
I guess I have to ask, how many modules have you read where this sort of tactic is employed? I've read all the adventure paths and I can't see where this sort of tactic could make sense to any of the villains. It's certainly not written into any of them.
Does your GM also destroy spellbooks? Kill witches familiars? Sunder and steal arcane bonds?
All of these sort of techniques are widely recognized as being not fun and destroying an heirloom weapon permanently is right up there with them.
Search the forums for threads titled things like "How do I protect my spellbook from my GM?" and you can see how much people enjoy that sort of thing.
Plenty,
Been at this hobby a real long time now, and the first one that jumped straight into my head was the old Against the Slavers modules. There's more where that came from no doubt. To be honest I haven't been reading all the AP's etc in PF as I am trying to spend time being a player instead of a GM, I reckon after over two decades of constant DM'ing I am due my playtime.
None of the NPCs EVER Sunder? For real?
The party NEVER loses nor gets taken captive, EVER?
That said, it is a common enough trope, and stealing a vital party asset is a great hook, especially in fatalistic/nihilistic players who want to do the whole 'whats my motivation' angle - usually the clown who rolled a CN character.
|
|
We were talking about forgoing the trait forever remember?
Sunder is repairable.
The party gets captured and everyone loses access to their gear.... then they fight their way out and recover it. There is no reason/ incentive for a GM to actually destroy the weapon, it's much more fun to make them squirm and fight to get it back. Then they suffer the loss of separation and the joy of recovery.
The party gets captured and everyone loses access to their gear.... then they fight their way out and recover it. There is no reason/ incentive for a GM to actually destroy the weapon, it's much more fun to make them squirm and fight to get it back. Then they suffer the loss of separation and the joy of recovery.
Ahh so you agree!
The weapon is 'lost' they spend a pile of time recovering it, and all is tea and medals. In the meantime, they can't simply acquire a replacement for use, and they contribute to the overall enjoyment of the campaign.
Sure it might get sundered, resulting in a temporary loss, but once again - denied the use for an indeterminate period.
I'm so glad you now see this trait for its full value to the whole table, not just the player.
I am sure you now mourn such a nice gift being lost to mediocrity.
Glad to have you on board.
Nothing about any of these events requires that you have an overpowered trait that is generally available.
Nothing makes you play a Wizard either, whats your point?
Nothing about any of these events requires that you have an overpowered trait that is generally available.Nothing makes you play a Wizard either, whats your point?
Or take a lion/tiger/raptor/pouncing creature not listed as a druid.
Wait... Is this another argument along the lines of "This trait/magic item/spell/whatever is perfectly balanced and not overpowered, so it isn't a problem to include. Thus, don't even think about excluding it, because it's so wonderfully useful that removing it causes more problems"?
No its a Why the heck make something that was good though could be cheesed and make it so lame its brussel sprouts thread.
Wait... Is this another argument along the lines of "This trait/magic item/spell/whatever is perfectly balanced and not overpowered, so it isn't a problem to include. Thus, don't even think about excluding it, because it's so wonderfully useful that removing it causes more problems"?
I haven't seen that argument posted up in a while, so no.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I guess I have to ask, how many modules have you read where this sort of tactic is employed? I've read all the adventure paths and I can't see where this sort of tactic could make sense to any of the villains. It's certainly not written into any of them.
0gre,
I can think of two off the top of my head.
Legacy of fire has the Pugs that shatter stuff. And Rise of the Rune Lords has the quasit that does the same. I think there's also a PFS scenario that has shatter potential.
Also I've not seen anyone saying that the trait as originally written was balanced in quite a while. I'm seeing that many people, myself included feel it went too far.
It's not even half or a third of a racial trait now. Making it 'you are proficient in this one weapon, or it's a martial weapon to you if normally exotic' would seem to be fair to me. Sure, this makes it equal to the weakest feat in the game Martial weapon proficiency, or saves a Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Cavalier/Magus a feat over the course of his/her career. For Rogue/Sorcerer/Cleric/Wizard, etc. It's a feat that would allow you to get an exotic weapon proficiency two levels earlier (by spending the trait to make the weapon marital, then spending martial weapon proficiency, so it's a 'feat-and-a-half' to get what some call the second weakest feat in the game.
Sure, this makes it equal to the weakest feat in the game Martial weapon proficiency,
Well its weaker than that weakest Feat, as martial allows you to use all Longwords (for example) but this allows you to use THAT Longsword. It will never be Silver, Mithril, Adamantite, nor likely to even be Cold Iron.
|
|
It will never be Silver, Mithril, Adamantite, nor likely to even be Cold Iron.
Well, that's just bad planning now, isn't it? Perhaps that longsword was used when the family manor was overrun by fae. Or werewolves. It should definitely be Silver or Cold Iron, at least. Heck, if I combined it with Rich Parents, I'd make it Darkwood or, if it's light enough, Mithril.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sure, this makes it equal to the weakest feat in the game Martial weapon proficiency,Well its weaker than that weakest Feat, as martial allows you to use all Longwords (for example) but this allows you to use THAT Longsword. It will never be Silver, Mithril, Adamantite, nor likely to even be Cold Iron.
Sorry I wasn't clear Shifty,
I meant 'you're proficient in this one weapon' as 'Longsword' not as in 'great granddaddy's longsword' I thought I was clear enough by referrencing the racial proficiencies as the example. I'll try to be clearer.
I guess I have to ask, how many modules have you read where this sort of tactic is employed? I've read all the adventure paths and I can't see where this sort of tactic could make sense to any of the villains. It's certainly not written into any of them.0gre,
I can think of two off the top of my head.
Legacy of fire has the Pugs that shatter stuff. And Rise of the Rune Lords has the quasit that does the same. I think there's also a PFS scenario that has shatter potential.
Actually, I think that the situation being sought for is the case where the trait goes away forever which your examples don't do. Your examples destroy the weapon, but not so irreparably that it can not be restored.
It's not even half or a third of a racial trait now.
But those racial traits are not necessarily equal to the power of a the category of traits that heirloom fits into. The majority of racial traits that come with races are much more powerful than what these traits grant.
|
|
Also I've not seen anyone saying that the trait as originally written was balanced in quite a while. I'm seeing that many people, myself included feel it went too far.
My feeling on traits is that they are simple things that get you a small benefit.
Heirloom weapon gets you access to a weapon you didn't have access to previously. Isn't that pretty valuable in itself?
If you are a martial character instead it gets you a +2 bonus on a specific CMB check. Isn't that comparable to many other traits?
The thing is not every trait is going to be the most powerful trait in the game. Not every trait is going to be useful to all characters. A trait should be appealing enough that some percentage of players will find it appealing. Considering the number of traits out there that percentage should probably be less than 10% but more than 1%. From what I can tell the current version falls pretty squarely in that range.
Take a serious look at other traits and what they do and compare it to the benefits of this version. Some are more powerful but many (most) are less powerful.
(I've bolded the ones I think are as good as or better than the revised Heirloom Weapon trait)
Anatomist: You have studied the workings of anatomy, either as a student at university or as an apprentice mortician or necromancer. You know where to aim your blows to strike vital organs, and you gain a +1 trait bonus on all rolls made to confirm critical hits.
Armor Expert: You have worn armor as long as you can remember, either as part of your training to become a knight's squire or simply because you were seeking to emulate a hero. Your childhood armor wasn't the real thing as far as protection, but it did encumber you as much as real armor would have, and you've grown used to moving in such suits with relative grace. When you wear armor of any sort, reduce that suit's armor check penalty by 1, to a minimum check penalty of 0.
Bullied: You were bullied often as a child, and you are now constantly ready to defend yourself with your fists when an enemy comes near. You gain a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity attack rolls made with unarmed strikes. Note that this trait does not grant the ability to make attacks of opportunity with your unarmed strikes—you must have a level of monk, the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, or some other similar power to gain the use of this character trait. However, that doesn't prevent you from selecting this trait. You simply cannot make use of it until a later point if you do.
Courageous: Your childhood was brutal, yet you persevered primarily through force of will and faith that no matter how hard things might get, as long as you kept a level head you'd make it through. You gain a +2 trait bonus on saving throws against fear effects.
Deft Dodger: Growing up in a rough neighborhood or a dangerous environment has honed your senses. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Reflex saves.
Dirty Fighter: You wouldn't have lived to make it out of childhood without the aid of a sibling, friend, or companion on whom you could always count to distract your enemies long enough for you to do a little bit more damage than normal. That companion may be another PC or an NPC (who may even be recently departed from your side). When you hit a foe you are flanking, you deal an additional 1 point of damage (this damage is added to your base damage, and is multiplied on a critical hit). This additional damage is a trait bonus.
Fencer: You trained with blades for long hours as a youth, either taking lessons in the genteel art of fencing from tutors paid for by your parents or by being taken under the wing of a disenfranchised fencer who may have turned to a life of crime. You gain a +1 trait bonus on attacks of opportunity made with daggers, swords, and similar bladed weapons.
Killer: You made your first kill at a very young age and found the task of war or murder to your liking. You either take particular pride in a well-placed blow, or find vile pleasure in such a strike as you twist the blade to maximize the pain. You deal additional damage equal to your weapon's critical hit modifier when you score a successful critical hit with a weapon; this additional damage is added to the final total, and is not multiplied by the critical hit multiple itself. This extra damage is a trait bonus.
Reactionary: You were bullied often as a child, but never quite developed an offensive response. Instead, you became adept at anticipating sudden attacks and reacting to danger quickly. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Initiative checks.
Resilient: Growing up in a poor neighborhood or in the unforgiving wilds often forced you to subsist on food and water from doubtful sources. You've built up your mettle as a result, and gain a +1 trait bonus on Fortitude saves.
Do you honestly think the current version is worse than half of these?