| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An example of it actively interfering with people's games (if implemented) is the Heirloom errata which, though justified, puts a whole lot of players in an awkward position (namely all those who chose exotic weapons who have to now change, in some cases, the entire character concept).
... having to spend a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency forces you to change your entire concept?
If so, it wasn't much of a concept.
I have a character or two that are rendered completely useless in my eyes by this change, *BUT* I will say it needed to happen. It, simply put, was not a choice. If you were a melee character, opting not to take Heirloom Weapon was opting to be mechanically worse than you could be, there's just no argument against that.
Don't forget that to many people, the particular weapon they choose to wield can define them. King Arthur is not the same character without Excalibur, Zorro is not the same without a rapier. Heirloom weapon was one of the best traits because it offered an effective way to create a different character from the perspective of wielding a unique weapon, it just had too much attached to it. Heirloom Weapon made up for the fact that Exotic Weapon Proficiency requires +1 BAB.
If they had just removed the trait bonus from attack rolls that probably would have been sufficient to make it balanced.
I prefer actually creating a weapon of legend that begins with your character. Heirloom weapon is a trap, and was a trap, and requires the GM to coddle the players and ignore basic combat options for the express purposes of going easy and of course, coddling them, for it to not be a trap. Even still, it's laughable because it's a weakness. You have to get the best enhancements for it as soon as possible (no waiting!) because you can't have it made out of any unusual materials (except perhaps cold iron or mithral if you took rich parents as well, but that's illegal in PFS so who gives a turkey).
As a GM (and someone who has never used either Rich Parents nor Heirloom weapon on any PC ever), I think this nerf is akin to the Vital Strike nerfs in terms of pointlessness. Heirloom weapon was a high-risk moderate reward option for characters, and unless you house rule the option to reselect traits it was easily rendered as a wasted trait in your character's career, since countless terrible things can happen to your weapon. Shatter, sundering, being disarmed and tossed into a volcano/river/gorge/portal/valley/ocean/etc and more or less lost forever or requiring questing to return it to your possession. Then you also have theft (you get stunned and a badguy grabs your dropped weapon and makes off with it), monsters who inflict damage on weapons when you strike them, damage reductions you can't pierce and so forth.
And what did you actually get for this measure of risky business? A +1 to hit and MAYBE a lesser equivalent of an already underpowered feat (a single weapon proficiency). Given the exception of perhaps that one weapon from that one splat-book (the falcata, I believe) there is no weapon in the core rulebook that is worth spending a feat for. Once upon a time, the spiked chain might have filled that role, but now it's inferior to the heavy flail and requires an exotic proficiency so it's essentially worthless.
The serious lack of comprehension of both mechanical and scenario (story/event/subjective) elements for a game that has effectively been out for about a decade and been through three iterations on this board, and the questionable notion of balance that people seem to have. I mean, just look at the sheer uproar over a +1 to hit with a weapon, while they're pumping out options for classes that don't need a boost at every corner, or allowing Paladins, Sorcerers, Oracles, and Summoners to add their Charisma modifier to their saving throws with a simple potion and nobody bats an eyelash (even though it even stacks with Divine Grace).
It's actually very disheartening.
I don't actually have an opinion about the trait because, quite frankly, I don't care about traits at all. But your line of thinking here bothers me. Its the same as saying "If someone took Improved Initiative purely for the increased chance to win initiative they deserve to loose it." or "If someone took a level in cleric purely for the chance to heal things, they deserve to loose it." That's silly. People take traits and feats and whatnot that fit their characters concepts. Sometimes those concepts include being awesome at what you do.
If someone took the trait purely for that +1, they deserve to lose it...
Improved Initiative is designed to do one thing. Heirloom weapon has many parts, some rp and some mechanical. If someone took it for the mechanical parts and tried to completely ignore the rp part, they didn't care about the trait, all they saw was the mechanical aspects. This is as problematic as those who want to ignore the mechanical aspects while hyping the rp aspects. That is the problem the trait had; not enough people looked at the entire trait and the full implications of it.
EDIT: The 3.5 druid had a similar problem. Most people read the sentences they wanted to read, and ignored the rest. A lot of the thing in the book that people complain about being broken aren't, they just didn't take the time to read the full text or track down the other pertinent rule sections and read those.
Zorro is not a first level swordsman, now is he?But he did have to train a whole hell of a lot.
Also, you can take additional traits as a feat, which in turn allow you to take heirloom weapon later on.
Interesting point; would one be allowed to substitute a masterwork (and thus enchantable) weapon for the non-masterwork normally allowed by the errata'd trait, if they took the trait at a higher level? GM call I suspect, and thus not PFS legal probably. But would it be (wait for it)... broken?
I like the fact that Paizo takes the time needed to correct their mistakes, but I do not want to see them issue errata for every perceived game imbalance. That is the path of madness...
Case in point, 4th edition D&D. 4e is so heavily errata-ed that my first printing player handbook does not play the same game as the current incarnation of 4e. This is not a knock on the 4e's system so please don't take it as an edition war, but it is a well known fact the game currently being played (with up to date rules) has major differences in core abilities that were present in PHB1 or PHB2.
I like rule clarifications, but reserve rewrites for extreme imbalances/mistakes.
Heirloom weapon was a high-risk moderate reward option for characters, and unless you house rule the option to reselect traits it was easily rendered as a wasted trait in your character's career, since countless terrible things can happen to your weapon.
The truth of that statement is extremely campaign dependent.
To take one easy example, I think sunder is in general a pretty questionable tactic given that you need a weapon at least as magical as the one you're trying to destroy for it to work, for example. Most of the GMs I've played with don't bother with it unless they're running a module with tactics specifically calling for it.
I use the word "broken" from time to time because it has "kick" to it and is guaranteed to get a reaction out of fellow posters, thereby furthering the discussion. It's what politicians call a "power word."
And that's what people call "trolling."
That's not a value judgement or insult on my part.
And that's what people call "trolling."That's not a value judgement or insult on my part.
If that's what people consider "trolling" then everyone trolls at all times.
Heirloom weapon was a high-risk moderate reward option for characters, and unless you house rule the option to reselect traits it was easily rendered as a wasted trait in your character's career, since countless terrible things can happen to your weapon.
The truth of that statement is extremely campaign dependent.
To take one easy example, I think sunder is in general a pretty questionable tactic given that you need a weapon at least as magical as the one you're trying to destroy for it to work, for example. Most of the GMs I've played with don't bother with it unless they're running a module with tactics specifically calling for it.
Dispel magic
But yeah, you'd best be gettin' that weapon enchanted quick, since the times when it's actually arguably really nice (from 1st-3rd level) is likewise when it is the most vulnerable. Likewise, magic weapons are harder to repair. A CL 11+ magic weapon is impossible to repair via make whole without going going post-20.
And yeah, sorry, but for more than a decade, stuff like dispel magic has been a staple of combat tactics in D&D and its derivatives, and unless it suddenly gets nerfed, that's 1d4 rounds of "oh crap, my weapon can be shattered/sundered!".
You see, equipment comes and goes. The rules of the game basically set for you to maintain an average WBL throughout your character's career. Maybe you find a flaming sword but it gets destroyed, so later a wizard you were questing for fashions an equally valuable sword for you out of thanks or some-such, and your WBL returns. Equipment is equipment. It can break, be lost, be destroyed, be stolen, or may need to be discarded for the success of everything (maybe you have to jam your shiny +1 sword into an adamantine mechanism to stop it from moving so your friends can escape certain doom (relying on the adamantine mechanism being unable to destroy your sword simply because the gearworks AREN'T magical), but later you can acquire another weapon on your adventures or take some time to make one.
Heirloom weapon? Once it's gone, it is gone. Some monster disarms you while you're fighting near a pool of lava/magma, and throws your weapon into a lake of fire? Well...good luck going and getting it, even if it can't be destroyed due to being magical (it's sitting at the bottom of a pool of molten magma, so you'd better get a craptastically huge amount of fire protection to go searching for it).
The absolute worst thing that could happen would be for your heirloom weapon to be enchanted past CL 10, because that would mean that if it is destroyed it is gone forever barring some sort of divine intervention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Improved Initiative is designed to do one thing. Heirloom weapon has many parts, some rp and some mechanical. If someone took it for the mechanical parts and tried to completely ignore the rp part, they didn't care about the trait, all they saw was the mechanical aspects.This is as problematic as those who want to ignore the mechanical aspects while hyping the rp aspects. That is the problem the trait had; not enough people looked at the entire trait and the full implications of it.
EDIT: The 3.5 druid had a similar problem. Most people read the sentences they wanted to read, and ignored the rest. A lot of the thing in the book that people complain about being broken aren't, they just didn't take the time to read the full text or track down the other pertinent rule sections and read those.
As long as the fluff doesn't directly interact with the mechanics, there isn't any reason you shouldn't be allowed to ignore them all you want. For example, I once played a samurai who had been gifted with magic from a powerful fey and who had a spirit wolf companion. But if you looked at my character sheet it just said hex-blade. Samurai's sucked in 3.5 and I didn't want to play one. But I was interested the hex-blades curses, dark companion, and mettle mechanics. The classes fluff didn't fit my characters concepts though so I changed it. All the mechanics were identical, but had been completely re-themed. It was the same as if I had taken the class "purely for that +1..."
My point is sometimes you just want an ability and who cares what fluff the game tries to tell you the mechanic comes with? Its your character so it comes with whatever ever fluff you damn well say it does.
Improved Initiative is designed to do one thing. Heirloom weapon has many parts, some rp and some mechanical. If someone took it for the mechanical parts and tried to completely ignore the rp part, they didn't care about the trait, all they saw was the mechanical aspects.This is as problematic as those who want to ignore the mechanical aspects while hyping the rp aspects. That is the problem the trait had; not enough people looked at the entire trait and the full implications of it.
EDIT: The 3.5 druid had a similar problem. Most people read the sentences they wanted to read, and ignored the rest. A lot of the thing in the book that people complain about being broken aren't, they just didn't take the time to read the full text or track down the other pertinent rule sections and read those.
As long as the fluff doesn't directly interact with the mechanics, there isn't any reason you shouldn't be allowed to ignore them all you want. For example, I once played a samurai who had been gifted with magic from a powerful fey and who had a spirit wolf companion. But if you looked at my character sheet it just said hex-blade. Samurai's sucked in 3.5 and I didn't want to play one. But I was interested the hex-blades curses, dark companion, and mettle mechanics. The classes fluff didn't fit my characters concepts though so I changed it. All the mechanics were identical, but had been completely re-themed. It was the same as if I had taken the class "purely for that +1..."
My point is sometimes you just want an ability and who cares what fluff the game tries to tell you the mechanic comes with? Its your character so it comes with whatever ever fluff you damn well say it does.
All my +1s are belong to you.
Improved Initiative is designed to do one thing. Heirloom weapon has many parts, some rp and some mechanical. If someone took it for the mechanical parts and tried to completely ignore the rp part, they didn't care about the trait, all they saw was the mechanical aspects.This is as problematic as those who want to ignore the mechanical aspects while hyping the rp aspects. That is the problem the trait had; not enough people looked at the entire trait and the full implications of it.
EDIT: The 3.5 druid had a similar problem. Most people read the sentences they wanted to read, and ignored the rest. A lot of the thing in the book that people complain about being broken aren't, they just didn't take the time to read the full text or track down the other pertinent rule sections and read those.
As long as the fluff doesn't directly interact with the mechanics, there isn't any reason you shouldn't be allowed to ignore them all you want. For example, I once played a samurai who had been gifted with magic from a powerful fey and who had a spirit wolf companion. But if you looked at my character sheet it just said hex-blade. Samurai's sucked in 3.5 and I didn't want to play one. But I was interested the hex-blades curses, dark companion, and mettle mechanics. The classes fluff didn't fit my characters concepts though so I changed it. All the mechanics were identical, but had been completely re-themed. It was the same as if I had taken the class "purely for that +1..."
My point is sometimes you just want an ability and who cares what fluff the game tries to tell you the mechanic comes with? Its your character so it comes with whatever ever fluff you damn well say it does.
In your case, you were able to find mechanics that worked with the fluff; that isn't the same as the character sheet saying there is a -4 non proficiency penalty when the story says they've been wielding the weapon their entire life. When mechanics directly contradict the story, you have problems. In your case, you simply refluffed the hexblade mechanics, which I love. It doesn't matter where the mechanics come from as long as they support, or at least, don't directly counteract the fluff.
|
In your case, you were able to find mechanics that worked with the fluff; that isn't the same as the character sheet saying there is a -4 non proficiency penalty when the story says they've been wielding the weapon their entire life.
If only there was a feat you could take at first level that would make you proficient with a weapon, no matter how exotic that weapon is...but what would we call it...
If only there was a feat you could take at first level that would make you proficient with a weapon, no matter how exotic that weapon is...but what would we call it...
Well to be fair, you do need a +1 BAB for that feat.
In your case, you were able to find mechanics that worked with the fluff; that isn't the same as the character sheet saying there is a -4 non proficiency penalty when the story says they've been wielding the weapon their entire life.
If only there was a feat you could take at first level that would make you proficient with a weapon, no matter how exotic that weapon is...but what would we call it...
Damn, beat me to it. And I had such a witty retort too!
|
|
Well to be fair, you do need a +1 BAB for that feat.
If only there was a feat you could take at first level that would make you proficient with a weapon, no matter how exotic that weapon is...but what would we call it...
So you want to have a special proficiency and bonus in a specific weapon you trained with all your life, at first level, but not be a martial class.
The thing about first level, is that you are first level.
So you want to have a special proficiency and bonus in a specific weapon you trained with all your life, at first level, but not be a martial class.
There are quite a few martial classes that are not full BAB. Rogues and Monks are come to mind.
Other classes like Inquisitors and Even Clerics should have the option to pick these feats up at first level because they're both reasonably designed for combat (in the cleric's case, it's a build option)
There are certain quirky exotic weapons like the Cross-bow Launcher that Alchemist can potentially use for fun and profit that a player must wait until lvl 3 to even begin tinkering with that character concept, and won't even be able to actually use it until lvl 5, which is when they get Rapid Reload.
And hell, even Wizards/Arcane sorcs have some use for it, since they get an Arcane bond, they could choose something a little more off beat like a Rapier or Glaive, or Scyth.
|
|
So you want to have a special proficiency and bonus in a specific weapon you trained with all your life, at first level, but not be a martial class.There are quite a few martial classes that are not full BAB. Rogues and Monks are come to mind.
Other classes like Inquisitors and Even Clerics should have the option to pick these feats up at first level because they're both reasonably designed for combat (in the cleric's case, it's a build option)
There are certain quirky exotic weapons like the Cross-bow Launcher that Alchemist can potentially use for fun and profit that a player must wait until lvl 3 to even begin tinkering with that character concept, and won't even be able to actually use it until lvl 5, which is when they get Rapid Reload.
And hell, even Wizards/Arcane sorcs have some use for it, since they get an Arcane bond, they could choose something a little more off beat like a Rapier or Glaive, or Scyth.
I read about your crossbow launcher...
I say again, the problem with first level is that you are first level.
You aren't supposed to be able to do everything you want to do at first level.
Well to be fair, you do need a +1 BAB for that feat.
If only there was a feat you could take at first level that would make you proficient with a weapon, no matter how exotic that weapon is...but what would we call it...So you want to have a special proficiency and bonus in a specific weapon you trained with all your life, at first level, but not be a martial class.
The thing about first level, is that you are first level.
Right, because if you're a wizard it would never have occurred to you to try training with a martial or exotic for those not so rare times that magic doesn't kill your opponent despite the assurance from your master sealed up in his tower filled with magical traps that such things aren't necessary. Or the battle cleric that the spiked chain might be an interesting way to apply the teachings of his god. The problem with thinking that only martial classes should be able to use certain weapons at level one because no one else could possibly have trained for them is that at level one, everyone plays the role of fighter, because spells only go so far at that level. The +1 BAB requirement for exotic weapon proficiency is part of what makes the feat as crappy as it is.
Dispel magic
But yeah, you'd best be gettin' that weapon enchanted quick, since the times when it's actually arguably really nice (from 1st-3rd level) is likewise when it is the most vulnerable. Likewise, magic weapons are harder to repair. A CL 11+ magic weapon is impossible to repair via make whole without going going post-20.
Except from the somewhat bizarre and hard to justify IC perspective of "Someone might have an irreplaceable, yet not artifact weapon, and I want to sacrificing the lives of my two-man dispeller and sunderer team destroying it", I still don't think Sunder is in most cases a particularly viable combat tactic.
You're going to spend a round of a caster (and hope he rolls high) and one or more attacks (and probably, feats) on a combat guy just to make the fighter switch to his backup weapon? I guess, but wouldn't you rather kill him?
I've had a lot of different DMs/GMs and I can't recally any of them getting much mileage out of sunder, if any. So, yeah. Extremely campaign dependent how big of a risk it is.
I say again, the problem with first level is that you are first level.
You aren't supposed to be able to do everything you want to do at first level.
I would agree with that, to a point. But there are a lot of classes that fluff wise should at least have the option of being able to use a wider array of weapons if they so choose that mechanically aren't allowed to currently.
Right, because if you're a wizard it would never have occurred to you to try training with a martial or exotic for those not so rare times that magic doesn't kill your opponent despite the assurance from your master sealed up in his tower filled with magical traps that such things aren't necessary. Or the battle cleric that the spiked chain might be an interesting way to apply the teachings of his god. The problem with thinking that only martial classes should be able to use certain weapons at level one because no one else could possibly have trained for them is that at level one, everyone plays the role of fighter, because spells only go so far at that level. The +1 BAB requirement for exotic weapon proficiency is part of what makes the feat as crappy as it is.
If it's important enough to them, their first level should be fighter or ranger or paladin or barbarian.
If it's not that important, it's not that important.
Right, because if you're a wizard it would never have occurred to you to try training with a martial or exotic for those not so rare times that magic doesn't kill your opponent despite the assurance from your master sealed up in his tower filled with magical traps that such things aren't necessary. Or the battle cleric that the spiked chain might be an interesting way to apply the teachings of his god. The problem with thinking that only martial classes should be able to use certain weapons at level one because no one else could possibly have trained for them is that at level one, everyone plays the role of fighter, because spells only go so far at that level. The +1 BAB requirement for exotic weapon proficiency is part of what makes the feat as crappy as it is.If it's important enough to them, their first level should be fighter or ranger or paladin or barbarian.
If it's not that important, it's not that important.
Bulls&%^t. I shouldn't have to sacrifice all the class features I want for a whole bunch I have no interest in just because the official weapon proficiencies don't quite line up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I say again, the problem with first level is that you are first level.
You aren't supposed to be able to do everything you want to do at first level.
Define not everything?
I think a character should be able to access the following:
Preferred Weapon, and one or two feats that help with that, (like Rapid Reload or even Weapon Focus and Power Attack).
Armor reasonable for their character concept
Fun mundane adventuring gear (Like rope and tents and backpacks)
Necessary class items (Like spells books and focuses)
A use for those class items
A small amount of distinct class abilities that make them stand out and let others know "Hey I'm a Paladin/Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/Wizard/Sorc/Cleric/Bard/Druid"
Things I think should come later:
Exceptional Adventuring Gear (Alchemist Labs, Thieve's tools)
The rest of the class features that further flesh out the class
Upgrades to Weapons and Armor
Wondrous Items
Feats and options that might accentuate their play style (like Maneuver Feats, or metamagic)
I would pretty much stop gaming with a GM [b]who made a routine habit[b] of using Dispel Magic to enable Shatter or sundering. Whether it's realistic or not, there is a set of "unwritten rules" for Pathfinder/D&D, and that's the sort of thing that violates them. It's like the party starting every fight by casting Mage's Disjunction on the enemies and forcing the GM to recalculate everything they probably spent hours calculating to begin with. There are just certain things that the GM doesn't do to players and certain things the players don't do to GMs - to steal the phrase, "it's just not cricket."
You see, equipment comes and goes. The rules of the game basically set for you to maintain an average WBL throughout your character's career. Maybe you find a flaming sword but it gets destroyed, so later a wizard you were questing for fashions an equally valuable sword for you out of thanks or some-such, and your WBL returns.
This is great for homebrew games, but it doesn't fly in Living Campaigns such as PFS, the main cause of concern regarding this trait. No "Friendly Mage" gives out replacement +4 weapons in Living Campaigns.
This change's impact on homebrew is not relevant. You can just say "oh, just keep playing with it how you had it", or "it works the old way still", or any other iteration you please... it's a moot point. Living Campaigns are forced to adhere to the new rule, and it's going to cause a huge problem for characters in PFS that were built around an heirloom weapon. Basically there's no way fair way around it besides letting them completely rebuild feats, traits, and gear.
Dire Mongoose
If it's important enough to them, their first level should be fighter or ranger or paladin or barbarian.
If it's not that important, it's not that important.
That's not a viable answer. Caster Level is king, we all know this, and it's an absolutely silly tax on a caster character to say "take a level of a melee class" just because their character concept has them proficient with a weapon.
Again, this comes down to the trait being a roleplay-enabler. It's not going to break things for a 1/2 bab class to be able to proficiently wield a bastard sword with one hand.
Well to be fair, you do need a +1 BAB for that feat.
If only there was a feat you could take at first level that would make you proficient with a weapon, no matter how exotic that weapon is...but what would we call it...So you want to have a special proficiency and bonus in a specific weapon you trained with all your life, at first level, but not be a martial class.
The thing about first level, is that you are first level.
No, I am on your side in this one. I was just saying to be fair, those who took it at level 1 now could not. I really do not mind myself, I am fine with the fix and if they want it take bad be a melee class at level 1.
|
|
Right, because if you're a wizard it would never have occurred to you to try training with a martial or exotic for those not so rare times that magic doesn't kill your opponent despite the assurance from your master sealed up in his tower filled with magical traps that such things aren't necessary. Or the battle cleric that the spiked chain might be an interesting way to apply the teachings of his god. The problem with thinking that only martial classes should be able to use certain weapons at level one because no one else could possibly have trained for them is that at level one, everyone plays the role of fighter, because spells only go so far at that level. The +1 BAB requirement for exotic weapon proficiency is part of what makes the feat as crappy as it is.
Actually no, because you were too busy studying to become a Wizard. Because it takes time to learn to be a first level wizard. Or a cleric, or whatever class wasn't spending all of it's time learning how to fight with a weapon, because it was too busy learning spells, or how to find traps, or whatever else your class does that isn't mastering an exotic weapon.
Now if you want to take a level of fighter, then a level of Wizard, sure. You could have trained to be a skilled fighter who then looked into the arcane. Or vice-versa. But no, at first level you cannot be all things to all people.
But the whole point of being first level, is that you are first level. You are just starting out, with a very limited set of abilities from a single class.
What you are proposing is multi-classing at first level.
To which I say, start at 2nd level.
Problem solved.
Bulls&%^t. I shouldn't have to sacrifice all the class features I want for a whole bunch I have no interest in just because the official weapon proficiencies don't quite line up.
Class based game system. If ya want something like that at level 1, then you need a class that gets it at level 1 or a race. Same as if ya had a fighter but wanted just 1 level 1 spell , if ya wanted that at level 1, you would need to take a class that allowed it.
I would pretty much stop gaming with a GM who made a routine habit of using Dispel Magic to enable Shatter or sundering. Whether it's realistic or not, there is a set of "unwritten rules" for Pathfinder/D&D, and that's the sort of thing that violates them. It's like the party starting every fight by casting Mage's Disjunction on the enemies and forcing the GM to recalculate everything they probably spent hours calculating to begin with. There are just certain things that the GM doesn't do to players and certain things the players don't do to GMs - to steal the phrase, "it's just not cricket."
I would agree, but I would also be equally hesitant to play with a DM that never used such tactics. They aren't fun when you get targeted by them, but without the threat you [i]could[/] be targeted with such things when facing intelligent enemies, the game loses the highs felt when you finally defeat such enemies.
Class based game system. If ya want something like that at level 1, then you need a class that gets it at level 1 or a race. Same as if ya had a fighter but wanted just 1 level 1 spell , if ya wanted that at level 1, you would need to take a class that allowed it.Bulls&%^t. I shouldn't have to sacrifice all the class features I want for a whole bunch I have no interest in just because the official weapon proficiencies don't quite line up.
Yes, but not every member of every class is going to learn the exact same thing. Feats are supposed to help cover those differences, and the requirements for exotic weapon proficiency only serve to make a weak feat even weaker by limiting who is going to show interest in taking it. Personally, I wish they would standardize the weapon groups from Unearthed Arcana; they make so much more sense than the official weapon proficiencies.
|
|
Bulls&%^t. I shouldn't have to sacrifice all the class features I want for a whole bunch I have no interest in just because the official weapon proficiencies don't quite line up.
Yes actually.
If I said "I shouldn't have to sacrifice the ability to cast spells just because I want to be able to Rage at first level" you would correctly point out that Rage is a class skill of Barbarian, and that a Barbarian is not a caster class.
And so, I point out to you that you can't have all the class features you want at first level.
I would pretty much stop gaming with a GM who made a routine habit of using Dispel Magic to enable Shatter or sundering. Whether it's realistic or not, there is a set of "unwritten rules" for Pathfinder/D&D, and that's the sort of thing that violates them. It's like the party starting every fight by casting Mage's Disjunction on the enemies and forcing the GM to recalculate everything they probably spent hours calculating to begin with. There are just certain things that the GM doesn't do to players and certain things the players don't do to GMs - to steal the phrase, "it's just not cricket."I would agree, but I would also be equally hesitant to play with a DM that never used such tactics. They aren't fun when you get targeted by them, but without the threat you [i]could[/] be targeted with such things when facing intelligent enemies, the game loses the highs felt when you finally defeat such enemies.
This would be why I bolded the phrase "made a routine habit of". To say that it's ok to happen once in a while, or in special situations, but to say this sort of thing is a reason for why taking heirloom weapon is a risk implies a far greater frequency of use then what most groups would mutually consider acceptable.
Yes actually.
If I said "I shouldn't have to sacrifice the ability to cast spells just because I want to be able to Rage at first level" you would correctly point out that Rage is a class skill of Barbarian, and that a Barbarian is not a caster class.
And so, I point out to you that you can't have all the class features you want at first level.
Rage or Spellcasting are substantially more powerful class features then proficiency with a single weapon. Try harder.
Bulls&%^t. I shouldn't have to sacrifice all the class features I want for a whole bunch I have no interest in just because the official weapon proficiencies don't quite line up.
On this we completely agree. Personally I don't think weapon proficiencies should even be feats at all. And if they must be feats, get rid of the stupid +1 BAB requirement. If you want a rogue who uses a Tri-bladed Katar, you should be able to just do that at level one. In 3.x I turned weapon proficiencies into a skill like read languages used to be; one skill point per proficiency. I gave martial types more skill points than normal and I'm still not convinced I wasn't overcharging.
Bulls&%^t. I shouldn't have to sacrifice all the class features I want for a whole bunch I have no interest in just because the official weapon proficiencies don't quite line up.
Yes actually.
If I said "I shouldn't have to sacrifice the ability to cast spells just because I want to be able to Rage at first level" you would correctly point out that Rage is a class skill of Barbarian, and that a Barbarian is not a caster class.
And so, I point out to you that you can't have all the class features you want at first level.
Except that handling weapons isn't unique to anybody. Everyone has to do it. I can see some limitations, and with the current system, requiring feats, but the requirements of those feats need to be reasonable so that if someone wants to expand their weapon options, they can.
Except that handling weapons isn't unique to anybody. Everyone has to do it. I can see some limitations, and with the current system, requiring feats, but the requirements of those feats need to be reasonable so that if someone wants to expand their weapon options, they can.
No, everyone can not do it. Just because I carry a knife does not mean I know how to use it in combat.
|
|
No, everyone can not do it. Just because I carry a knife does not mean I know how to use it in combat.Except that handling weapons isn't unique to anybody. Everyone has to do it. I can see some limitations, and with the current system, requiring feats, but the requirements of those feats need to be reasonable so that if someone wants to expand their weapon options, they can.
Exactly.
Weapon proficiency is a class feature, no different than hit points or skill points.
No, everyone can not do it. Just because I carry a knife does not mean I know how to use it in combat.
You're also not an adventurer.
And to those who say the a Wizard doesn't take the time to study martial related things:
They are proficient in some simple weapons. this means that they are at least able to reasonably hold their own in combat with things like quarter staffs and daggers and cross-bows. The latter of which require a little bit more training that just point-and-shoot to be able to use.
No, everyone can not do it. Just because I carry a knife does not mean I know how to use it in combat.Except that handling weapons isn't unique to anybody. Everyone has to do it. I can see some limitations, and with the current system, requiring feats, but the requirements of those feats need to be reasonable so that if someone wants to expand their weapon options, they can.
Exactly.
Weapon proficiency is a class feature, no different than hit points or skill points.
There are traits to make pretty much any skill you would like a class skill, your hit points can be adjusted by changing your personal weighting of your constitution score (and/or forgoing your favored class bonus to take an extra hit point). In fact, virtually every class feature in the game that is not a class-defining feature (such as rage or spellcasting abilities) can be adjusted by either a feat or a trait at level one, with the exception of non 1/1 BAB classes taking an exotic weapon, which they must wait until not even level 2, but level 3 for.
Again -- Try harder.
[
You're also not an adventurer.
And to those who say the a Wizard doesn't take the time to study martial related things:
They are proficient in some simple weapons. this means that they are at least able to reasonably hold their own in combat with things like quarter staffs and daggers and cross-bows. The latter of which require a little bit more training that just point-and-shoot to be able to use.
That class is called a Magus, not a wizard. Bard also work as does multi-classing.
Weapon proficiency is a class feature, no different than hit points or skill points.
This is why I like the Unearthed Arcana way of dealing with it. The number of weapon group proficiencies one received was a class feature, not which weapons they could use. The wizard had the same basic options the fighter did when it came to selecting weapons, even if the fighter was able to choose more of the options.
Did the fighter have the same spell options as a wizard then?
That class is called a Magus, not a wizard. Bard also work as does multi-classing.
My two weapon fighting, war fan wielding wizard would have something to say about that I should think.
That class is called a Magus, not a wizard. Bard also work as does multi-classing.
That's a cute attempt at being clever.
Especially since it's not responsive and an actual part of game play.
Let me repeat: Wizards are trained to use weapons properly, they can wield (and at first level mind you) a Quarterstaff, Dagger, Club, and Crossbow just as well as a Magus can absent all other class features.
A magus has class features that allow them to do things like Spell Combat, and they have an arcane pool, but that's training outside of weapon proficiency
Dispel magic
But yeah, you'd best be gettin' that weapon enchanted quick, since the times when it's actually arguably really nice (from 1st-3rd level) is likewise when it is the most vulnerable. Likewise, magic weapons are harder to repair. A CL 11+ magic weapon is impossible to repair via make whole without going going post-20.
Except from the somewhat bizarre and hard to justify IC perspective of "Someone might have an irreplaceable, yet not artifact weapon, and I want to sacrificing the lives of my two-man dispeller and sunderer team destroying it", I still don't think Sunder is in most cases a particularly viable combat tactic.
You're going to spend a round of a caster (and hope he rolls high) and one or more attacks (and probably, feats) on a combat guy just to make the fighter switch to his backup weapon? I guess, but wouldn't you rather kill him?
I've had a lot of different DMs/GMs and I can't recally any of them getting much mileage out of sunder, if any. So, yeah. Extremely campaign dependent how big of a risk it is.
Bizarre and hard to justify?
Ok so we got this guy who's swinging around this +X weapon of mass destruction that he also has a +7 to hit and damage with ('cause he's cool like that) and is wielding it two handed for bonus damage, and he means to carve up that wonderful magic-resistant golem of yours with it? Well screw that. You nerf the heck out of his shiny stick. You brake it, you take it, or you somehow try to find some way to negate it.
Wanna know just how good sundering or disarming can be? I had a player who used an off-hand (dual wielding) disarm as part of an attack routine against an orc warrior they were fighting. He disarms the warrior, bringing his damage down from 2d6+6 to 1d3+4. At higher levels, the difference is even more astounding (and it also rewards people for carrying backup weapons).
As for "kill him", you must know by now that damage is Boolean. You're either alive or your dead. There's not a whole lot in between (barring undead but that's more like the other side of the coin as they can die too). Why would you risk trying to kill the powerful hero who can shrug off the bloodied axes of a thousand orcs, when you could just de-fang him temporarily to gain the upper hand?
I would pretty much stop gaming with a GM who made a routine habit of using Dispel Magic to enable Shatter or sundering. Whether it's realistic or not, there is a set of "unwritten rules" for Pathfinder/D&D, and that's the sort of thing that violates them. It's like the party starting every fight by casting Mage's Disjunction on the enemies and forcing the GM to recalculate everything they probably spent hours calculating to begin with. There are just certain things that the GM doesn't do to players and certain things the players don't do to GMs - to steal the phrase, "it's just not cricket."
Cricket? You gotta know what a crumpet is to understand cricket. /snarky reference
A habit? No. I doubt it will be a habit. It's not like every mage in the world walks around with quickened shatter and dispel magic prepared just to destroy the Fighter's shiny weapon, but y'know what? All it takes is ONE.
I have a 13 year old brother who was basically naked after an encounter with a particularly agitated sorceress, who proceeded to hold him and strip him down, one saving throw at a time. The party was even vastly above WBL at the time due to getting a big cache of equipment. He lost an adamantine weapon, his mwk plate mail, and a few other masterwork weapons, because she shattered all of it. The thing that's amusing about it? He didn't whine or moan once. He cringed each time he failed that save vs shatter but he took it like an adult.
Later he got re-geared, had more adventures, and hasn't had a situation like it happen since. He even has more gear now than he did then. He didn't cry over losing a piece of equipment.
Now the problem with heirloom gear? It's more than a piece of equipment. It's part of your character, but it's effectively a piece of equipment. It's a piece of equipment you literally cannot replace, because it is one of a kind and cost you a limited resource that there is no way to replace short of GM fiat.
You see, equipment comes and goes. The rules of the game basically set for you to maintain an average WBL throughout your character's career. Maybe you find a flaming sword but it gets destroyed, so later a wizard you were questing for fashions an equally valuable sword for you out of thanks or some-such, and your WBL returns.This is great for homebrew games, but it doesn't fly in Living Campaigns such as PFS, the main cause of concern regarding this trait. No "Friendly Mage" gives out replacement +4 weapons in Living Campaigns.
That's great but I don't really discuss games that don't follow the rules. I understand that PFS is not Pathfinder. It's a variation of Pathfinder. It uses different rules, different limitations, and so forth. What they probably should have done was just banned the trait from the beginning like they did with Rich Parents instead of having everyone whine about a trait that isn't very good unless you're absolutely certain you will never - ever - lose this weapon, and that you aren't playing by the PF rules.
In short, if I want to discuss PFS, I'll go discuss PFS, if I want to discuss PF, I'll do that. The two are different.
This change's impact on homebrew is not relevant. You can just say "oh, just keep playing with it how you had it", or "it works the old way still", or any other iteration you please... it's a moot point. Living Campaigns are forced to adhere to the new rule, and it's going to cause a huge problem for characters in PFS that were built around an heirloom weapon. Basically there's no way fair way around it besides letting them completely rebuild feats, traits, and gear.
So let them completely rebuild and say "Oh, our bad guys, we should have just not made this legal from the get-go", and take responsibility.
That's not a viable answer. Caster Level is king, we all know this, and it's an absolutely silly tax on a caster character to say "take a level of a melee class" just because their character concept has them proficient with a weapon.
Again, this comes down to the trait being a roleplay-enabler. It's not going to break things for a 1/2 bab class to be able to proficiently wield a bastard sword with one hand.
I agree with this 100%.
|
You keep saying that this applies, even to PFS, but here's the thing - in PFS, if you took Heirloom Weapon, your character is now illegal for play.
Period.
Not so.
Mark M has said that he is working on an official way to handle characters affected by this change. In the past, characters affected by significant changes to feats or class features have been allowed to rebuild, or have been grandfathered.
In the meantime, while awaiting the official answer, the characters are playable as is.
That class is called a Magus, not a wizard. Bard also work as does multi-classing.
That's a cute attempt at being clever.
Especially since it's not responsive and an actual part of game play.
Let me repeat: Wizards are trained to use weapons properly, they can wield (and at first level mind you) a Quarterstaff, Dagger, Club, and Crossbow just as well as a Magus can absent all other class features.
A magus has class features that allow them to do things like Spell Combat, and they have an arcane pool, but that's training outside of weapon proficiency
wizards are trained with a very limited set number of weapons, ones that are used in arcane studies or have an ease of use most commoners can wildly swing them.
They are not truly combat trained ( Take note of your BAB here) Bards, Clerics, Magues and the like however are in fact combat trained, while your wizard has slightly more weapon training ( and the same amount of combat training)then your average farmer.
Did the fighter have the same spell options as a wizard then?
Does a wizard have the advanced fighting techniques available to them? A wizard will never match a fighter in weapon combat, and shouldn't, but that's not what people are talking about. We are talking about learning enough about a weapon that you don't risk killing yourself every time you try to use it. That really isn't that hard. A fighter can do it in 1/10 of the time that a wizard can because that is his focus, but that doesn't mean a 1st level wizard couldn't have spent an hour a night for six months to get the hang of a spiked chain. Time for training really isn't a factor when you've had at least 18-20 years to figure out something that basic. I can see for balance sake why you would need to spend a feat on it, but it doesn't require the type of combat training represented by a +1 BAB; it just requires time.
If wizards have all weapons open to them fights at the very lest should then be allowed wizard zero level spell, after all its only enough training to use a little magic right?
Seeker, Sorry to interrupt, but is the website down? I can't seem to summon it.
If wizards have all weapons open to them fights at the very lest should then be allowed wizard zero level spell, after all its only enough training to use a little magic right?
It isn't that wizards should have the range of weapons available to them that fighters do; it's that wizards, when deciding what weapons they want to train with, should have the same range to choose from. They still only have a limited amount of training time, so the range of weapons they are actually competent with is less, but the range of weapons available to choose from during that limited training shouldn't be.