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?
They're not saying they should have all weapons open. They're saying they should at least have the OPTION of taking exotic weapon proficiency as a feat if they want to be able to be proficient with an unusual weapon.
And there are plenty of feats available to gain access to cantrips.
Seeker, Sorry to interrupt, but is the website down? I can't seem to summon it.
Tis indeed down, it as up earlier.
They're not saying they should have all weapons open. They're saying they should at least have the OPTION of taking exotic weapon proficiency as a feat if they want to be able to be proficient with an unusual weapon.
And there are plenty of feats available to gain access to cantrips.
And they are free to take those feats, once they meet the requirements for them. Just like any other feat.
|
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.
If you limit it to specific weapons, so are commoners. Experts can kick their asses though. I guess all that time in the smithy wearing leather helps out.
And they are free to take those feats, once they meet the requirements for them. Just like any other feat.
You obviously haven't understood the point. The point was that some us think the prereqs are dumb. Saying "tough s!+$" isn't a counter argument.
|
But when the paths that yield mechanical synergies are eliminated for the sake of PFS play, it is a little frustrating.
I know, the standard answer is 'ignore the rule in your home game', and for some rules, we might. I guess I just don't enjoy the perception (warranted or not) that the minorities of Pathfinder players who participate in PFS seem to have a disproportionate degree of impact on the game as a whole.
A late reply, but I missed this thread earlier. Not directed strictly at your post, Underling, but I've seen this kind of "tail wagging the dog" post a few times.
First, with over 14,000 players, I think you underestimate the amount of PFS play going on.
Second, PFS is Paizo's largest reporting playtest group, with many GMs running the same scenarios and providing feedback on how various character builds interact with the same encounters. Society play should not dictate general rules changes, but it would be foolish of Paizo to not take the feedback of GMs running for diverse groups into account when considering how to handle a planned re-design.
You obviously haven't understood the point. The point was that some us think the prereqs are dumb. Saying "tough s*~~" isn't a counter argument.
And they are free to take those feats, once they meet the requirements for them. Just like any other feat.
No, I disagree with your point. Not that I failed to understand it. Why should you have it? You are no more combat trained the the average pig farmer. You get 3 more weapons but no an once more combat knowledge or know how then a farmer does.
An Inn keeper or blacksmith are both better combat trained then a wizard.
No, I disagree with your point. Not that I failed to understand it. Why should you have it? You are no more combat trained the the average pig farmer. You get 3 more weapons but no an once more combat knowledge or know how then a farmer does.An Inn keeper or blacksmith are both better combat trained then a wizard.
That's a crap assertion and you know it. Pig farmers, inn keepers and black smiths aren't combat trained. That sickle your farmer is proficient with? That hammer your blacksmith knows how to use? Yeah guess how he learned to use it? HINT: it wasn't in a fight.
If I take a feat to be good at using a weapon, that means that I didn't take the time to do something else, like gain a +1 to the DC of all my enchantment spells (a better option actually in terms of power). That perfectly explains why I should have it. I chose it at the cost of something else. +1 BAB is dumb prereq.
That's a crap assertion and you know it. Pig farmers, inn keepers and black smiths aren't combat trained. That sickle your farmer is proficient with? That hammer your blacksmith knows how to use? Yeah guess how he learned to use it? HINT: it wasn't in a fight.
.
Yet they have the very same combat skill level, the Blacksmith and Innkeeper have a better combat skill level, Your wizard did not learn to use those 4 weapons in a fight eaither. Bab is the measure of how well you are trained to fight. Your Armor and weapon proficiency granted by Your class are the weapons you have been trained or learned to use.
The Wizard is not a combat class, he has zero real skill at fighting. If that is what you want then take an arcane class with at lest some combat skill {magues or Bard)
The Wizard is not a combat class, he has zero real skill at fighting. If that is what you want then take an arcane class with at lest some combat skill {magues or Bard)
Neither of these can take Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level either.
Nope, ya need a front line Primary Melee class to do so at level 1.Someone who is trained (Shockley enough) primarily at combat.
Nope, ya need a front line Primary Melee class to do so at level 1.Someone who is trained (Shockley enough) primarily at combat.
But you contradicted your reasoning for why.
EDIT: Likewise BAB has 0% to do with actual training in weapons. Many +0 BAB classes and HD types have proficiency with all simple weapons, which means that as far as BAB goes they are just as "trained" as a wizard is, and yet it proves BAB has nothing to do with learning how to use a weapon competently.
Furthermore, classes such as rogues get several martial weapons with a +0 BAB. Likewise, a creature with a +1 or higher BAB isn't necessarily proficient with anything at all. An intelligent Construct has a +1 BAB and can take Exotic Weapon Proficiency, but has no proficiency or training otherwise unless specifically called out.
Monstrous Humanoids have a perfect BAB like fighters but are only proficient in Simple weapons.
Your argument that wizards are somehow limited in their weapon training based on their Base Attack Bonus is demonstrate-ably flawed.
Nope, ya need a front line Primary Melee class to do so at level 1.Someone who is trained (Shockley enough) primarily at combat.But you contradicted your reasoning for why.
How so? The wizard is not a trained combatant in any shape really, the bard or Magus are combat trained, but split focus.
Why should some who is no better trained in combat then joe the pig farmer be allowed something from the realm of Real front line fighting types?
Nope, ya need a front line Primary Melee class to do so at level 1.Someone who is trained (Shockley enough) primarily at combat.But you contradicted your reasoning for why.How so? The wizard is not a trained combatant in any shape really, the bard or Magus are combat trained, but split focus.
Why should some who is no better trained in combat then joe the pig farmer be allowed something from the realm of Real front line fighting types?
See my edited post above.
EDIT: So yes I think the +1 BAB requirement is pretty stupid. Saying that it is stupid, or suggesting to house rule it, or suggesting it for errata is no less valid than the people who whined and complained to get a relatively weak trait nerfed to uselessness.
I mean as long as we're fixing stuff, let's actually fix stuff that could use fixing. Is there a balance reason that it should have a +1 BAB? No. Is there a precedent? No. Can it improve the variation of character options? Yes. Is it more powerful another option for the same expense would be? No. End result = Should be fixed.
|
|
The Wizard is not a combat class, he has zero real skill at fighting. If that is what you want then take an arcane class with at lest some combat skill {magues or Bard)Neither of these can take Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level either.
Nope, ya need a front line Primary Melee class to do so at level 1.Someone who is trained (Shockley enough) primarily at combat.
And yet Bards get an Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level. :)
what i want to see is a series of options for swapping proficiencies.
i do not understand why every member of a given class, regardless of race or ethnic background, is proficient with the same stuff.
Yet they have the very same combat skill level, the Blacksmith and Innkeeper have a better combat skill level, Your wizard did not learn to use those 4 weapons in a fight eaither. Bab is the measure of how well you are trained to fight. Your Armor and weapon proficiency granted by Your class are the weapons you have been trained or learned to use.
Yeah, they all have the same level of skill as a fighter too. That's cause there are only two skill levels. Proficient and not proficient. Unless you are seriously suggesting that the difference between skilled and unskilled is a 5% difference in our chance to hit?
The point still stands that if I take the time to invest in a feat that I should be able to use an exotic weapon without a +1 BAB. Weapons don't have enough impact on gameplay for this not to be true. Personally I think asking for a feat is too much.
The Wizard is not a combat class, he has zero real skill at fighting. If that is what you want then take an arcane class with at lest some combat skill {magues or Bard)
That isn't true in the least. There aren't any PC classes that aren't combat classes. All of them can fight. Some of them suck at it (monk) and some of them are awesome at it (wizards). Wizards are great fighters. They always have been (at least since AD&D). And Pathfinder hasn't changed that.
They nerfed Selective Spell?
Some clever players were using it in a abusive manner? Looks like it was being used with antimagic field. Interesting. I always looked at this feat as providing a means for blasters to use the old archmage ability to exclude targets. Never even thought to use it for longer duration spells.
Nerf to Heirloom Weapon was needed. Way too powerful a feat. Though I believe the nerf went way too far and made it useless. Even though some are theorizing ways to make it useful, overall I doubt it will be taken by many people ever again unless it is confirmed they can turn it into a Masterwork Weapon. Then it might work with certain builds.
As far as allowing a non-martial weapon class to take a weapon they couldn't otherwise, that is really not practical. Never seen a wizard more effective with a sword or martial or simple weapon than with his more powerful save or suck or blasting spells. He might only come close with a build dedicated to making melee weapon use effective.
I like Pathfinder being able to adjust the game while it is released. Sure, we can house rule what we don't like. But it's nice to have official eratta.
Though it is irritating when they make a change that isn't sensible like with Heirloom Weapon. Sure, it needed to be reduced in effectiveness. But making the trait mechanically useless and conceptually inappropriate is a bad eratta.
Heirloom Weapon is supposed to be a weapon the player takes with the intent of using it for his entire playing career. Not something to get some minor benefits at low level and then throw it away. Seems pretty lame that it isn't MW so it can at least be upgraded and provides some minor reasonable benefit for the player having spent all his time training with it to honor his family. I think it was a very poor eratta meant to completely eliminate the trait from common use.
Let's not forget that nobles (the NPC class) are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as armors. That means they are just as trained as Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians, and yet have the exact same +hit modifier as a wizard. Statistically, the wizard's +hit with weapons is actually probably a bit better in the case of ranged weapons (as a PC wizard likely has a higher Dex modifier).
Some clever players were using it in a abusive manner? Looks like it was being used with antimagic field. Interesting. I always looked at this feat as providing a means for blasters to use the old archmage ability to exclude targets. Never even thought to use it for longer duration spells.
I haven't seen the nerf, but honestly I'm almost forced to wonder why anyone would use it with AMF. I mean if you were to make an AMF field around you, with a hole in the middle for yourself, you effectively have no protection against magic at all, since AMF doesn't prevent magical effects from passing through it.
Let's not forget that nobles (the NPC class) are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as armors. That means they are just as trained as Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians, and yet have the exact same +hit modifier as a wizard. Statistically, the wizard's +hit with weapons is actually probably a bit better in the case of ranged weapons (as a PC wizard likely has a higher Dex modifier).
Some clever players were using it in a abusive manner? Looks like it was being used with antimagic field. Interesting. I always looked at this feat as providing a means for blasters to use the old archmage ability to exclude targets. Never even thought to use it for longer duration spells.I haven't seen the nerf, but honestly I'm almost forced to wonder why anyone would use it with AMF. I mean if you were to make an AMF field around you, with a hole in the middle for yourself, you effectively have no protection against magic at all, since AMF doesn't prevent magical effects from passing through it.
You're using logic assuming there is a hole. Selective Spell does not say it creates a five foot hole. It merely excludes a number of people from the spell effect. So by a RAW reading, you could cast an antimagic field and exclude a number of people from its effect without breaching its effectiveness at all.
I never thought to do this because it is an obvious abuse. I have players that don't seek to abuse spells in a way that is obviously game breaking. But I can see how it would give GMs problems because by RAW, you could do this if Selective Spell did not make sure to indicate spells with an instantaneous duration. Which I don't believe it originally did.
You know you could always just carry around a simple weapon version of the weapon you want to be wielding until you can get the feat, just pretend it is the other weapon fluffwise (pay for it as if it is the other weapon too), when you get the proficiency it gains the stats of said weapon (hence why you paid for it as if it always was).
No reason you can't say your quarterstaff is a double-sword until you can actually wield a double-sword. Do you actually NEED the games confirmation that your using a certain weapon? Mechanically you wouldn't notice the difference in the first three levels anyway.
Let's not forget that nobles (the NPC class) are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as armors. That means they are just as trained as Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians, and yet have the exact same +hit modifier as a wizard. Statistically, the wizard's +hit with weapons is actually probably a bit better in the case of ranged weapons (as a PC wizard likely has a higher Dex modifier).
Some clever players were using it in a abusive manner? Looks like it was being used with antimagic field. Interesting. I always looked at this feat as providing a means for blasters to use the old archmage ability to exclude targets. Never even thought to use it for longer duration spells.I haven't seen the nerf, but honestly I'm almost forced to wonder why anyone would use it with AMF. I mean if you were to make an AMF field around you, with a hole in the middle for yourself, you effectively have no protection against magic at all, since AMF doesn't prevent magical effects from passing through it.You're using logic assuming there is a hole. Selective Spell does not say it creates a five foot hole. It merely excludes a number of people from the spell effect. So by a RAW reading, you could cast an antimagic field and exclude a number of people from its effect without breaching its effectiveness at all.
I never thought to do this because it is an obvious abuse. I have players that don't seek to abuse spells in a way that is obviously game breaking. But I can see how it would give GMs problems because by RAW, you could do this if Selective Spell did not make sure to indicate spells with an instantaneous duration. Which I don't believe it originally did.
Oh wow. I honestly couldn't remember the feat's effects and someone had mentioned that it was Pathfinder's version of the archmage class feature (which allows you to shape spells) which made me wonder why it was suddenly a problem - but yes! If that was the case that would make it perhaps the most busted metamagic feat ever - antimagic field or not. *chuckles*
Even without antimagic field, being able to drop stuff like cloudkill, solid fog, black tentacles, and so forth willy-nilly with no harm to your allies would be insanely powerful. Heck, I'm pretty sure there's a way to break it with instantaneous spells if I was to go look around a bit. :P
Oh wow. I honestly couldn't remember the feat's effects and someone had mentioned that it was Pathfinder's version of the archmage class feature (which allows you to shape spells) which made me wonder why it was suddenly a problem - but yes! If that was the case that...Let's not forget that nobles (the NPC class) are proficient with all simple and martial weapons, as well as armors. That means they are just as trained as Fighters, Rangers, and Barbarians, and yet have the exact same +hit modifier as a wizard. Statistically, the wizard's +hit with weapons is actually probably a bit better in the case of ranged weapons (as a PC wizard likely has a higher Dex modifier).
Some clever players were using it in a abusive manner? Looks like it was being used with antimagic field. Interesting. I always looked at this feat as providing a means for blasters to use the old archmage ability to exclude targets. Never even thought to use it for longer duration spells.I haven't seen the nerf, but honestly I'm almost forced to wonder why anyone would use it with AMF. I mean if you were to make an AMF field around you, with a hole in the middle for yourself, you effectively have no protection against magic at all, since AMF doesn't prevent magical effects from passing through it.You're using logic assuming there is a hole. Selective Spell does not say it creates a five foot hole. It merely excludes a number of people from the spell effect. So by a RAW reading, you could cast an antimagic field and exclude a number of people from its effect without breaching its effectiveness at all.
I never thought to do this because it is an obvious abuse. I have players that don't seek to abuse spells in a way that is obviously game breaking. But I can see how it would give GMs problems because by RAW, you could do this if Selective Spell did not make sure to indicate spells with an instantaneous duration. Which I don't believe it originally did.
Yep. A very nasty metamagic feat for +1 level without the instantaneous spell limitation.
The old archmage ability did leave 5 foot squares open. When I first read Selective Spell, I assumed it was the same. But now I see it wasn't and as usuall, the clever players were breaking it. As they always do.
It helps games to revise their rules appropriately when players abuse the heck out of rules.
You know you could always just carry around a simple weapon version of the weapon you want to be wielding until you can get the feat, just pretend it is the other weapon fluffwise (pay for it as if it is the other weapon too), when you get the proficiency it gains the stats of said weapon (hence why you paid for it as if it always was).
No reason you can't say your quarterstaff is a double-sword until you can actually wield a double-sword. Do you actually NEED the games confirmation that your using a certain weapon? Mechanically you wouldn't notice the difference in the first three levels anyway.
If we were talking about 4E, I probably wouldn't care what the rules say, because there are virtually none; that is a big reason a lot of people like 4E. In PF, the rules exist, and you can't just ignore them because you feel like telling a different story. As for your trick in the first paragraph, try in the PFS and see how well it works. From what organized play I've done, it wouldn't fly.
In PF, the rules exist, and you can't just ignore them because you feel like telling a different story.
I don't think I could possibly think of a better reason than that.
In PF, the rules exist, and you can't just ignore them because you feel like telling a different story.I don't think I could possibly think of a better reason than that.
You're working in the wrong system, then. Stretching the rules, sure, but if you are going to completely ignore them, you're better off playing a system whose design is more compatible with the type of stories you want to tell.
If we were talking about 4E, I probably wouldn't care what the rules say, because there are virtually none; that is a big reason a lot of people like 4E. In PF, the rules exist, and you can't just ignore them because you feel like telling a different story. As for your trick in the first paragraph, try in the PFS and see how well it works. From what organized play I've done, it wouldn't fly.
Actually it does, I buy a quarterstaff, I tell everyone it looks like a double sword (still paying for and using the mechanics of the quarterstaff), later when I have the cash and feat to use the double sword I buy a double sword. Fluffwise no one has to think anything changed if I don't want them to, now I'm just using the stats of my new weapon.
Pf rules legal and everything
If we were talking about 4E, I probably wouldn't care what the rules say, because there are virtually none; that is a big reason a lot of people like 4E. In PF, the rules exist, and you can't just ignore them because you feel like telling a different story. As for your trick in the first paragraph, try in the PFS and see how well it works. From what organized play I've done, it wouldn't fly.
Actually it does, I buy a quarterstaff, I tell everyone it looks like a double sword (still paying for and using the mechanics of the quarterstaff), later when I have the cash and feat to use the double sword I buy a double sword. Fluffwise no one has to think anything changed if I don't want them to, now I'm just using the stats of my new weapon.
Pf rules legal and everything
Or you could just fix exotic weapons so that they cam be used without people complaining about them. What you're doing doesn't solve the actual problem, it just ignores it.
You're working in the wrong system, then. Stretching the rules, sure, but if you are going to completely ignore them, you're better off playing a system whose design is more compatible with the type of stories you want to tell.In PF, the rules exist, and you can't just ignore them because you feel like telling a different story.I don't think I could possibly think of a better reason than that.
I think PF is a great system to use any kind of houserules, since the system actually supports them, you can stretch, ignore or rewrite rules freely with little impact on the game at large
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think PF is a great system to use any kind of houserules, since the system actually supports them, you can stretch, ignore or rewrite rules freely with little impact on the game at large
I find that to be the greatest strength of the d20 system. You can pull and push it into any configuration you like.
|
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.
Is he first level? Because that is what we are talking about here.
No one is saying you can't eventually become a two weapon fighting wizard.
We are saying it isn't realistic at first level, unless you want to take a lot of penalties.
You're working in the wrong system, then. Stretching the rules, sure, but if you are going to completely ignore them, you're better off playing a system whose design is more compatible with the type of stories you want to tell.
I've been playing with the d20 system since before it was even released. I've used it to tell stories that most people couldn't even imagine working within the system at all. I'm definitely not using the wrong system. I'm also not ignoring any rules. Changing them yes. But removing a +1 BAB requirement is, I promise you, not something you would have noticed or even cared about if it had been that way right out of the gate. Having this requirement doesn't add anything to the game, nor does does it prevent anything unbalancing. That, to me, is a waste of ink.
|
|
You obviously haven't understood the point. The point was that some us think the prereqs are dumb. Saying "tough s*#&" isn't a counter argument.
And they are free to take those feats, once they meet the requirements for them. Just like any other feat.
No, we understood.
We disagree.
The fact that every class can't do everything at first level is exactly the way it is supposed to be.
Or you could just fix exotic weapons so that they cam be used without people complaining about them. What you're doing doesn't solve the actual problem, it just ignores it.
I thought this was about fluff? Your asking for mechanical changes. I don't see how doing it my way or your way changes the fluff at all. Except your way involves giving casters even more and taking yet another advantage from pure melee.
|
|
The Wizard is not a combat class, he has zero real skill at fighting. If that is what you want then take an arcane class with at lest some combat skill {magues or Bard)Neither of these can take Exotic Weapon Proficiency at 1st level either.
Nor should they be able to, considering they aren't a full BaB fighting class, and therefore devoted themselves to other studies rather than specifically the study of fighting.
Being proficient in an exotic weapon isn't something you do on the side while also learning spells anymore than learning spells is something you do on the side with your main class skills.
If you want to have it at first level, you can. You just can't also cast spells.
If you want it at 2nd level, you can, you will just need to take a level of fighter.
If you want it at 3rd level you can, that is how the system is designed.
Making every character you can imagine at first level isn't the intent of the game, nor should it be the intent of the game. First level characters are not epic heroes. They are a half step above the local blacksmith.
You are not an epic hero at first level. You are a snot nosed kid going out on their first mission to hopefully not get themselves killed by goblins.
|
|
Or you could just fix exotic weapons so that they cam be used without people complaining about them. What you're doing doesn't solve the actual problem, it just ignores it.
Or you could realize they aren't broken.
If you want to be good at fighting with an exotic weapon at first level, be a fighter with exotic weapon proficiency.
If you want to be a caster who is good at fighting with an exotic weapon, realize you are a first level character and wait until next level.
|
|
Actually it does, I buy a quarterstaff, I tell everyone it looks like a double sword (still paying for and using the mechanics of the quarterstaff), later when I have the cash and feat to use the double sword I buy a double sword. Fluffwise no one has to think anything changed if I don't want them to, now I'm just using the stats of my new weapon.
Pf rules legal and everything
Or, I have a double-edged sword, but I don't know how to use it very well because I have been studying how to be a wizard rather than how to fight.
I'm practicing on the side so that maybe by third level (or 2nd if I really focus on it and take a level of fighter) I'll be proficient with it.
I mean, I can still use it, I just am not very good at it...which is unsurprising since I'm not a full BaB class...
Or, I have a double-edged sword, but I don't know how to use it very well because I have been studying how to be a wizard rather than how to fight.
I'm practicing on the side so that maybe by third level (or 2nd if I really focus on it and take a level of fighter) I'll be proficient with it.
I mean, I can still use it, I just am not very good at it...which is unsurprising since I'm not a full BaB class...
That could be represented in the lower weapon stats of the weapon your replacing it with as opposed to the -4 penalty. Just other options, both are valid.
Is he first level? Because that is what we are talking about here.
Yes (campaign just started). Though, to be fair, the DM I'm currently playing under doesn't over value exotic weapons like PF does. I didn't have to spend a feat on it. And thank goodness too, because not most exotic weapons aren't actually worth a feat (war fans certainly aren't).
No one is saying you can't eventually become a two weapon fighting wizard.
Good, because they would be wrong. I AM a two weapon fighting wizard.
No, what he was saying is that a 'fighting wizard' is a magus (or a bard). I simply remarked that that wasn't necessarily true, and quite frankly, it isn't even important.
We are saying it isn't realistic at first level, unless you want to take a lot of penalties.
Realism is a waste of your time, and in fact, an impossibility in a fantasy game. You should try for verisimilitude instead. The believability of a wizard capable of wielding an exotic weapon at first level is quite high. Especially in a world that thinks that kama, siangham, repeating crossbows, and shurikens are somehow significantly harder to use than sickles, clubs, crossbows, and throwing daggers.
The fact that every class can't do everything at first level is exactly the way it is supposed to be.
Well, well, well. If it isn't my old nemesis Mr. Strawman.
I never made any such claim. I said that requiring a +1 BAB for EWP was dumb. That's it. I didn't say any such crap about everybody getting everything at first level and neither did anyone else.
If you want to have it at first level, you can. You just can't also cast spells.
That's true. There is no reason for it to be that way, but it is true.
...that is how the system is designed.
So? The system was designed to do a lot of things. Most of those things work well. Some of those things are stupid. This is one of those things.
Making every character you can imagine at first level isn't the intent of the game, nor should it be the intent of the game. First level characters are not epic heroes. They are a half step above the local blacksmith.You are not an epic hero at first level. You are a snot nosed kid going out on their first mission to hopefully not get themselves killed by goblins.
This is just more of that strawman argument from earlier.
|
|
Stuff
Not a strawman. A strawman is an off topic argument intended to distract from the underlying premise. My entire point is that you are a first level, not full BaB class, so why should you be able proficient in exotic weapons any more than a full BaB class should be able to cast spells.
You can't take exotic weapon proficiency at first level without a +1 BaB because it represent extensive training in learning to use an exotic weapon, beyond what a non-martial class would be able accomplish at first level.
You can use the heirloom item trait, as currently written, to be proficient with the old double-sword your dad gave you.
"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."
You just can't be better with that weapon than a fighter now.
As an aside, I personally would have made two weapon fighting require +1 BaB as well, but I can see it being a concession to allow for rogues to access it.
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.
So are experts and aristocrats. I don't think that puts them in adventurer status though.
But removing a +1 BAB requirement is, I promise you, not something you would have noticed or even cared about if it had been that way right out of the gate. Having this requirement doesn't add anything to the game, nor does does it prevent anything unbalancing. That, to me, is a waste of ink.
On that part, we agree.
Or you could just fix exotic weapons so that they cam be used without people complaining about them. What you're doing doesn't solve the actual problem, it just ignores it.
Or you could realize they aren't broken.
If you want to be good at fighting with an exotic weapon at first level, be a fighter with exotic weapon proficiency.
If you want to be a caster who is good at fighting with an exotic weapon, realize you are a first level character and wait until next level.
When half of them are just barely worth taking a trait and the other half probably justify 2 or 3 feats just to be proficient in them, I would say there is a great deal wrong with them.
I don't mind the devs fixing mistakes or closing unintentional loopholes, but sometimes they take it too far, over-nerfing things to the point where they just aren't good options anymore, or actively interfere with an ongoing game should they be implemented.
Examples of going too far include the Vital Strike/Spring Attack nerfs (which were actually more balanced when they were allowed to work together).
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).
Times where fixing was definitely needed (and was implemented properly) include closing the infinite spell loophole of Echo Spell or making Selective Spell only apply to instantaneous effects.
Vital Strike/Spring Attack DID need clarification, but it did NOT need nerfing. It would have been fine left alone. The changes to Heirloom are good for the most part, but they should have left the option to choose an exotic weapon.
I am in agree with one exception, I just believe that the trait should have been made to remain useful for all levels like most other traits.
Not a strawman. A strawman is an off topic argument intended to distract from the underlying premise. My entire point is that you are a first level, not full BaB class, so why should you be able proficient in exotic weapons any more than a full BaB class should be able to cast spells.
You countered an argument that nobody is making. You misrepresented the actual claims of those of us who are your opposition in this debate and created the false impression that have refuted our position. That is EXACTLY what a strawman is.
You can't take exotic weapon proficiency at first level without a +1 BaB because it represent extensive training in learning to use an exotic weapon, beyond what a non-martial class would be able accomplish at first level.
It doesn't do that well or meaningfully. It can't unless it reclassifies weapons to categories that make sense. Kama's are NOT harder to use than sickles (hell they ARE sickles) and a +1 BAB doesn't fix this. There is no reason for there to be a BAB requirement when there is already a feat requirement.
You can use the heirloom item trait, as currently written, to be proficient with the old double-sword your dad gave you.You just can't be better with that weapon than a fighter now.
I don't care about traits. At all.
As an aside, I personally would have made two weapon fighting require +1 BaB as well, but I can see it being a concession to allow for rogues to access it.
You don't see the double standard here? You would make a concession for rogues to two-weapon fight, but not for rogues to wield Tri-blade Katars and Kamas? Even though two-weapon fighting is actually HARDER to do? Yeah, what happened to all the realism you were talking about?
When half of them are just barely worth taking a trait and the other half probably justify 2 or 3 feats just to be proficient in them, I would say there is a great deal wrong with them.
Or you could just fix exotic weapons so that they cam be used without people complaining about them. What you're doing doesn't solve the actual problem, it just ignores it.
Or you could realize they aren't broken.
If you want to be good at fighting with an exotic weapon at first level, be a fighter with exotic weapon proficiency.
If you want to be a caster who is good at fighting with an exotic weapon, realize you are a first level character and wait until next level.
I agree. Exotic Weapon Proficiancy should be a flat trait in it self. It is not worth a feat, especially with the huge Spiked Chain nerf. Yes it was over powered in 3.5, but with the other changes made to trip, it was fine. Now it is about equal to a martial weapon.
Honest question; how many people have seen this weapon even used any more?
When half of them are just barely worth taking a trait and the other half probably justify 2 or 3 feats just to be proficient in them, I would say there is a great deal wrong with them.
Or you could just fix exotic weapons so that they cam be used without people complaining about them. What you're doing doesn't solve the actual problem, it just ignores it.
Or you could realize they aren't broken.
If you want to be good at fighting with an exotic weapon at first level, be a fighter with exotic weapon proficiency.
If you want to be a caster who is good at fighting with an exotic weapon, realize you are a first level character and wait until next level.
I agree. Exotic Weapon Proficiancy should be a flat trait in it self. It is not worth a feat, especially with the huge Spiked Chain nerf. Yes it was over powered in 3.5, but with the other changes made to trip, it was fine. Now it is about equal to a martial weapon.
Honest question; how many people have seen this weapon even used any more?
I still have plans for a spiked chain inquisitor for whoever runs Carrion Crown. The reach thing is a bit of a bother, but it can be remedied with some magic, me thinks. I would probably go with heirloom weapon to have it at first level, BUT, if I really wanted to rebalance heirloom weapon, I would make it so that it just gave the proficiency and the masterwork quality. The +1 trait bonus aught to be a separate trait. Even for a martial class with a full BAB, starting the game with a masterwork weapon is pretty nice in of itself, especially when the proficiency doesn't cost a feat.
As for sunder problems, if your GM wants to play that card, fine by me. Just gives me an Aragorn complex, where by I walk around with a broken sword until I can find some Elven king-master blacksmith with enchanted forges to make it into even more pimped out weapon. I think its not so much a trap as a story hook. If you are in competition with your GM/party for who can make the most b*&&&in' killing machine, then ...
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / It’s a trap! \
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . .\ _________ /
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . \/. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;\ . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
. . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
. . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ \ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
. . . \ :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : \ :\ ||/ /,-‘-‘x### ::\ \ ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . \/ /---‘’’’ : \ #\ : :\ : : \ :\ \| | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . /,’____ : :\ ‘-#\ : \, : :\ :\ \ \ : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ \ \ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ \ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/\ . . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\,/ /|\\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ \ \ . . . . . . . .
. . . . .\\’|\\ \|/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : :\ \, . . . . . . .
. . . ./¯ :| \ |\ : |/\ :: ::----, :\/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
. . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\\ . . . .
. ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
/ : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : : :
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).
It's incomprehensible to me that in one sentence you can say how good disarm and sunder are, and in the next sentence point out the counter-strategy of carrying backup weapons.
Can you get someone's damage down a little by forcing them to use their backup weapon, yeah. Is that difference worth that it takes to happen? Generally not, in my opinion. You'd nerf the fighter's damage output more (and, in most cases, probably have an easier roll to make) throwing Slow instead of Dispel Magic, and then sunderguy is free to do something better than sunder with his turn.