so those are the ones that will logically survive.
Or... you know... the sword of your grand, grand daddy :)
BTW if you are going to apply real life rules to masterwork and non-masterwork swords, you are gonna have to do all of those things with both of them.
Sure the jewels are fake, but that does not make the sword look any less interesting and one of a kind. Maybe it came from an adventuring band, or a merc company or a military unit.
Sure someone who looks at it really close next to real jewels will know they are fake.
And yes you can engrave on any sword, maybe not the fine detail work of masterwork but you can do it.
It does not have to be masterwork to look different or be passed down from father to son.
Yeah, seems like an easy fix, it's duration instantaneous so it's permanent and non-dispellable. Someone else pointed that spell out but I didn't catch that it was permanent.
I wonder if I can use this spell with PFS... hmm.
Considering that Josh and I worked out the basics of this spell while he was still at Paizo, after a discussion of Heirloom Weapon, I am 99% sure it's supposed to be PFS-legal. Really, the spell is a no-brainer, should have been in the game long ago.
Though I didn't know about the "instant spells end at the end of a scenario" PFS rule. I'll talk to Mark about it.
Yep. And I use the Lifestyle rules to cover that - if you aren't keeping up with that in your downtime and don't pay for your mundane (normal OR MW) weapon, it breaks eventually.so those are the ones that will logically survive.Or... you know... the sword of your grand, grand daddy :)
BTW if you are going to apply real life rules to masterwork and non-masterwork swords, you are gonna have to do all of those things with both of them.
That's what the trait is for. You get a well maintained weapon from your folks. Cool eh?
Yep it is now in line with other taints,
Interesting Freudian slip...
|
Incorrect, And Who Was saying I did it for an Optimized Choice, Said character that took it was a ninja (Summoner) who inherited the Weapon Onigumo which was forged from the fangs of a bebilth after one of his great ancestor's slayed it. The Sword, due to its origin was named after the creature and used to slay demons and other evil creatures. Said Character also took Exotic Weapon Prof Bastard Sword anyway and has no score over 16, actually his highest is a 16 followed by a 14 and 13's and 12's. It would make no sense to this concept if a Bebilith Fang Sword WAS NOT masterwork at least.
I chose it because it made sense for the character, luckily I was taking fighter at 4th level anyway
Fair enough, I was attributing motivations to you that I wasn't present for, I apologize for that.
Now, just because you aren't making optimizing choices in general doesn't mean you aren't making an optimizing choice in this particular case, and I don't think there's anything wrong with making an optimizing choice. But does the whole concept die if the sword isn't masterwork? I don't think so.
Perhaps the issue is that there's a big crunch change, and it's seen as a big fluff change because of the removal of masterwork. But, to be honest, a sword doesn't have to be masterwork to be special. It doesn't have to be masterwork to be an heirloom, or have a history, or be seen as valuable.
The fluff doesn't change. Not at all.
I believe that Heirloom Weapon needed fixing, but that this isn't the right fix. The changes mean that, to any character without access to the Masterwork Transformation spell (e.g. PFS characters), the Trait is indeed worthless past roughly 3rd level.
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.
|
I would've done this nerf in a completely different way. I would have done the following:
You grew up training with a weapon passed down to you through family. You must start play with a non-masterwork weapon and pay its cost, but are proficient with weapons of that type. This weapon can be reforged to become masterwork by paying the difference in cost. You cannot willingly rid yourself of this weapon, and receive a -1 morale penalty to attack rolls with weapons of its type if the weapon is broken or lost until you either find the weapon, fix it or a month has passed (whichever comes first).
There. Now it's essentially a feat with a small drawback to balance it into a trait. Hurray, now you can fit the flavor without having a trait that sucks/becomes-useless!
If it's supposed to be an heirloom gift, why is Dad charging me top market rate for a 50 year old sword?
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.
Presumably people with antagonistic DM's who go out of their way to make their players unhappy.
No one I'd likely play with, but you never know right?
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.I believe that Heirloom Weapon needed fixing, but that this isn't the right fix. The changes mean that, to any character without access to the Masterwork Transformation spell (e.g. PFS characters), the Trait is indeed worthless past roughly 3rd level.
A. Anyone not playing with Ultimate Magic
B. Anyone playing in Pathfinder Society (instantaneous spells only have durration "to end of scenario") Edit: I haven't read the PFS rules, so I am just parroting someone else upthread here. Just pointing out why there is concern there.Edit: Adding C: Breaks alot of to the verisimilitude to have a a non-mw weapon passed down through the family.
If it's supposed to be an heirloom gift, why is Dad charging me top market rate for a 50 year old sword?
Because its your starting wealth not starting money. Your not starting the campaign by buying all of this stuff. Its stuff you have aquired over your pre-adventuring life.
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.Presumably people with antagonistic DM's who go out of their way to make their players unhappy.
No one I'd likely play with, but you never know right?
If you are playing with a DM like that, he would probably break your blade, steal it or make it mad at you anyway, so, you wouldn't take the Trait, even the broken old version. :)
I wonder if I can use this spell with PFS... hmm.No. The effects of every long-term spell in PFS are reduced to "Until the end of the scenario" even for instantaneous duration spells.
So where is this exactly? I can't find it. Only thing I found was that active spells end at the end of a scenario.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If it's supposed to be an heirloom gift, why is Dad charging me top market rate for a 50 year old sword?
"Son, as you head off into that great wide world out there, I can't help but think you need to have this sword by your side. Your great-grandfather first fought with it over 70 years ago defending Lord Throckmorton in his battle against Lord Stone. Your grandfather carried it in the Denver campaign. And I used it to repel borders on that cruise that your mother and I took when we were first wed. Now, it is your time. Carry it well, my son. And when you earn your glory, think of your family."
"Why gee, thanks dad! I'll always remember you and mom, and what it means to be a Quantrill."
{starts walking towards door}
"Uh, son."
"Yes dad?"
"That'll be 28 gold pieces."
So where is this exactly? I can't find it. Only thing I found was that active spells end at the end of a scenario.I wonder if I can use this spell with PFS... hmm.No. The effects of every long-term spell in PFS are reduced to "Until the end of the scenario" even for instantaneous duration spells.
Yep. Even instantaneous spells are considered active in PFS. The classic example is "Animate Dead".
It's just another of those rules that aren't really written down that you are supposed to know.
If it's supposed to be an heirloom gift, why is Dad charging me top market rate for a 50 year old sword?"Son, as you head off into that great wide world out there, I can't help but think you need to have this sword by your side. Your great-grandfather first fought with it over 70 years ago defending Lord Throckmorton in his battle against Lord Stone. Your grandfather carried it in the Denver campaign. And I used it to repel borders on that cruise that your mother and I took when we were first wed. Now, it is your time. Carry it well, my son. And when you earn your glory, think of your family."
"Why gee, thanks dad! I'll always remember you and mom, and what it means to be a Quantrill."
{starts walking towards door}
"Uh, son."
"Yes dad?"
"That'll be 28 gold pieces."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA.
Funny.But as stated earlier, it's starting wealth, not money :)
The whole nerf smacks of kneejerk and chinbearding.
What is chinbearding?
Except the writing is in marker, the jewels are party jewelry fakes, and the blade was from the bargain bin at Walmart. you can't expect engraving or real jewels in a standard PHB sword. THat's what masterwork is for.
I can still have an eagle headed hilt with "jeweled " eyes and the name "Ever sight" written in old tongue upon its blade.
I disagree. I could have an unbalanced weapon (non-masterwork) with 1,000gp worth of jewels in it's hilt.
It would be insanely expensive, and doesn't make much sense (who would spend that kind of money sprucing up an unbalanced weapon), but it is certainly possible to have a decorated non-masterwork weapon. In fact, it's possible to have the reverse. A terrible-looking rustic weapon with great balance and a sharp edge could still be considered masterwork despite looking like garbage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Son, as you head off into that great wide world out there, I can't help but think you need to have this sword by your side. Your great-grandfather first fought with it over 70 years ago defending Lord Throckmorton in his battle against Lord Stone. Your grandfather carried it in the Denver campaign. And I used it to repel borders on that cruise that your mother and I took when we were first wed. Now, it is your time. Carry it well, my son. And when you earn your glory, think of your family."
"Why gee, thanks dad! I'll always remember you and mom, and what it means to be a Quantrill."
{starts walking towards door}
"Uh, son."
"Yes dad?"
"That'll be 28 gold pieces."
Son: Um... Dad... I hate to break it to you, but a Longsword only costs 15 gold pieces.
Dad: Listen here! Do you have any idea how much gear I've had to sell off for half-value? You'll pay the 28 gold, just like your grandfather charged me!
Grandpa: *mumbling in the corner* Damned ungrateful kids... the whole lot of 'em....
It's just another of those rules that aren't really written down that you are supposed to know.
If it isn't written down, either in PFS documentation or as a post by a dev, then it's not a rule then is it?
EDIT: Nevermind, FOUND IT.
|
I disagree. I could have an unbalanced weapon (non-masterwork) with 1,000gp worth of jewels in it's hilt.
It would be insanely expensive, and doesn't make much sense (who would spend that kind of money sprucing up an unbalanced weapon), but it is certainly possible to have a decorated non-masterwork weapon. In fact, it's possible to have the reverse. A terrible-looking rustic weapon with great balance and a sharp edge could still be considered masterwork despite looking like garbage.
Except the trait makes you buy the weapon. So considering how limited starting wealth is, its fake jewels and magic-marker 'engraving' for you!
If it isn't written down, either in PFS documentation or as a post by a dev, then it's not a rule then is it?
Ah. I was young once.
Ah. I was young once.
If it isn't written down, either in PFS documentation or as a post by a dev, then it's not a rule then is it?
Nevermind, Found it. See? If it is a real rule it is found somewhere.
The whole nerf smacks of kneejerk and chinbearding.
What is chinbearding?
Except the writing is in marker, the jewels are party jewelry fakes, and the blade was from the bargain bin at Walmart. you can't expect engraving or real jewels in a standard PHB sword. THat's what masterwork is for.
I can still have an eagle headed hilt with "jeweled " eyes and the name "Ever sight" written in old tongue upon its blade.
I disagree. I could have an unbalanced weapon (non-masterwork) with 1,000gp worth of jewels in it's hilt.
It would be insanely expensive, and doesn't make much sense (who would spend that kind of money sprucing up an unbalanced weapon), but it is certainly possible to have a decorated non-masterwork weapon. In fact, it's possible to have the reverse. A terrible-looking rustic weapon with great balance and a sharp edge could still be considered masterwork despite looking like garbage.
As I understand it, lots of late renaissance weapons we like this, with the ballance all off because they wanted it for show. But that shouldn't be the type of heirloom weapon you get with this trait. It should be assumed that you are getting something your father (who is usually relatively poor and a semi-hero himself, as far as cliche backstories go) would want to entrust to you.
Sorry mate, but if one TRAIT breakes a character, it was already a bad concept for sure.
Never know.What they HAVE done though, is launch something that appears to be a fairly significant change that breaks a lot of characters as it apploes retrospectively, and they haven't thought about how to deal with that mess.
I feel sorry for the PFS people all now sitting around with no clear answer on how to 'fix' their now broken characters.
Simply put it was a bad move, and poorly supported by those imlpementing it.
but hey on the odd chance you are right, "Hey guys, you can stop buying the $15 AA guide, the Trait is all fixed and shiny over in our $40 UC so buy that instead!" ;p
This is what I was thinking. If a character requires a trait to be functional and not broken, then it was being held together by a thread anyway. I mean, I applaud the player so willing to follow their character's backstory that they would construct that and play it, but still. (Note: Not a PFS player, so the ramifications there might be lost on me, but it's still a little boggling.)
This is what I was thinking. If a character requires a trait to be functional and not broken, then it was being held together by a thread anyway. I mean, I applaud the player so willing to follow their character's backstory that they would construct that and play it, but still. (Note: Not a PFS player, so the ramifications there might be lost on me, but it's still a little boggling.)
This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1. Also, those classes are very short on feats, so they now have to work one in at later levels, ruining any build they had planned.
In addition, they invested money and resources (enchanted) a weapon that now suddenly lost its masterwork properties and they may have lost profficiency in. This basically makes characters unplayable in PFS games, where lost money cannot be recovered, and causes annoying retcons in other games.
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.I believe that Heirloom Weapon needed fixing, but that this isn't the right fix. The changes mean that, to any character without access to the Masterwork Transformation spell (e.g. PFS characters), the Trait is indeed worthless past roughly 3rd level.
You are making massive assumptions about the game world, and the location of the pcs. Have you never played a wilderness campaign or a mega-dungeon where there is no 'back to town'? Or if there is where there is no magic mart where the local wizard can whip up whatever spell you need? I've played in plenty of games where it is simply not an option to do this.
A trait should not require the use of a spell that does not come with the trait in order to function, and this one does. That is poor design. I agree with everyone that the original heirloom weapon was problematic, but this one is badly designed and poorly thought out.
And lets not forget about the fact that the two do not appear in the same book, I shouldnt need a spell from Ultimate magic to make a trait from another book work. How many dms right here on these boards have said they wont allow additional mega option books like UM but do take smaller books from the other lines?
Like I said I dont particularly care that the trait got nerfed, but the way it was done is lazy and poorly thought out design.
This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.
Ancestral Arms.
This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1. Also, those classes are very short on feats, so they now have to work one in at later levels, ruining any build they had planned.
I'll agree with you (and several others here) that removing the possibility of EWP seems a little excessive, especially since the trait only allowed it to be used with the specific weapon granted (which would now no longer even be masterwork by default.)
This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.
Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)
Please take note developers:
HW was too good, and needed to be toned down, but it was taken too far in this case; the restriction to non-exotic weapons is especially lame.
All of that being said however, the erratta went to far. The limitation to simple and martial was too much IMO.
Before it was a good patch for the overvaluing of the EWP feat. That's gone.
I personally think my only issue with the new version is that it specifies a simple or martial weapon.
If it allowed you to simply choose a weapon, I think it'd be perfect.
...taking out both exotic and masterwork was too much. Putting one or the other, but not both, back in is really all that is needed to get it to a form that people would actually want to use.
I'm not a PFS GM, so I'll probably just add back the ability to exotic weapons for my players. ... That seems to be the biggest issue, in my opinion, the nerfing of the trait.
Removing the exotic weapon option was a step too far.
|
|
Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.
APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.
|
|
Lmao crack dad meets pathfinder .....hay son daddy is gunna pass down to you erm this shortsword its been in the family for generations i just need 6 gp fer "expenses".That would allow you to keep your heirloom, masterwork it, and the apply magic to it. Short of it being sundered or stolen, you will have it the rest of your career AND have it be up to snuff.Yeah but now you are paying 360 for M/Work rather than 300.
That's just annoying.It also doesn't make for a very engaging backstory or sense of worth in the item, 'Your dads craptastic old longsword' is not nearly as interesting as a Samurai passing on his 'artwork' Katana.
It's a trait.
It's now as powerful as a typical trait (arguably still slightly more powerful than many but it's much much closer to where a trait belongs).
The spell allows you to keep the trait useful for the life of the character which IMO was the only real problem with the fix.
Overall, it's a good result.
If you need to be reliant on someone else's SPELL to make your FAMILY HEIRLOOM not suck I think there is a problem there. Heck Why would a family heirloom be not masterwork " Here son this is a regular greatsword passed down through generations that you have to pay regular price for...congrats"
1)"It is initial wealth, not money", as already pointed out. So your guy don't start with X GP. He start with his militia weapons, his hunting bow, the gear he brought during his per adventuring life and so on;
2) It is easy to explain why the weapon is not masterwork and it need a spell or work by an expert to become one even if your fluff require it to be a special weapon.
It has been left unattended by a competent smith for decades over the chimney. The edge has dulled, it has begun to rust, the hilt has frayed and so on. So it was a masterwork weapon, now it work as a normal weapon. You need to reforge it to bring it to its old levels of performance.
APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.
Right, so 1 race can do it. Doesn't help the Dwarf Rogue who wants to take his father's Dwarven War Axe.
Right, so 1 race can do it. Doesn't help the Dwarf Rogue who wants to take his father's Dwarven War Axe.APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.
Why can't he have the war ax? The trait does allow him to use it, or you can just have the weapon. You are a rogue, you did not spend the time growing up learning to use the weapon correctly, but you can have it.
You don't want your daddys war axe, you want the free masterwork weapon.
Right, so 1 race can do it. Doesn't help the Dwarf Rogue who wants to take his father's Dwarven War Axe.APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.
But a feat does.
|
|
Right, so 1 race can do it. Doesn't help the Dwarf Rogue who wants to take his father's Dwarven War Axe.APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.Why can't he have the war ax? The trait does allow him to use it, or you can just have the weapon. You are a rogue, you did not spend the time growing up learning to use the weapon correctly, but you can have it.
You don't want your daddys war axe, you want the free masterwork weapon.
I thought that the entire point of the heirloom weapon trait is that you DID spent the time learning to use the weapon correctly. You didn't necessarily train like a fighter, but you trained with that weapon.
I don't know why other people liked the trait, but I liked it because it gave a route for interesting proficiencies. I could care less about the masterwork part. In fact, for a campaign I started recently I convinced the DM to allow me to spend a trait on scimitar proficiency as a rogue. The only difference between scimitar and rapier is the damage type. Spending a feat on that would have been stupid.
|
|
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.I believe that Heirloom Weapon needed fixing, but that this isn't the right fix. The changes mean that, to any character without access to the Masterwork Transformation spell (e.g. PFS characters), the Trait is indeed worthless past roughly 3rd level.
You are making massive assumptions about the game world, and the location of the pcs. Have you never played a wilderness campaign or a mega-dungeon where there is no 'back to town'? Or if there is where there is no magic mart where the local wizard can whip up whatever spell you need? I've played in plenty of games where it is simply not an option to do this.
A trait should not require the use of a spell that does not come with the trait in order to function, and this one does. That is poor design. I agree with everyone that the original heirloom weapon was problematic, but this one is badly designed and poorly thought out.
And lets not forget about the fact that the two do not appear in the same book, I shouldnt need a spell from Ultimate magic to make a trait from another book work. How many dms right here on these boards have said they wont allow additional mega option books like UM but do take smaller books from the other lines?Like I said I dont particularly care that the trait got nerfed, but the way it was done is lazy and poorly thought out design.
If you don't have access to "magic mart" you don't have access to the possibility to enchant the masterwork weapon too.
Even if some of your party member take the magic item crafting feats, without the magic mart you don't have the components to enchant stuff (unless you add plenty of extra rules).
The rules are simplifications, you don't take 1000 gp in coins, pile them up, trust a masterwork sword in the middle of the money pile saying "mumbo jumbo" and presto, you have a +1 magical sword.
Enchanting the weapon require 1.000 in "components".
They can be anything, from the gall stone from a dragon that can be used only once to sharpen a sword to make it magical to tempering it using 20 litres of minotaur blood. What they aren't is simple money.
The example made above of a blade made with the claw of a bebelith is a nice example of a possible magical component.
So if you play in a "mega-dungeon" or in the wilderness you use your looted treasure to keep going, you don't enchant your heirloom masterwork weapon.
If you have access to the resources to enchant a weapon you should generally have access to the resources to make a normal weapon too. masterwork
I thought that the entire point of the heirloom weapon trait is that you DID spent the time learning to use the weapon correctly. You didn't necessarily train like a fighter, but you trained with that weapon.I don't know why other people liked the trait, but I liked it because it gave a route for interesting proficiencies. I could care less about the masterwork part. In fact, for a campaign I started recently I convinced the DM to allow me to spend a trait on scimitar proficiency as a rogue. The only difference between scimitar and rapier is the damage type. Spending a feat on that would have been stupid.
Guess what? You still can do that. It just is no longer master work and no longer can be exotic.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Why can't he have the war ax? The trait does allow him to use it, or you can just have the weapon. You are a rogue, you did not spend the time growing up learning to use the weapon correctly, but you can have it.
You don't want your daddys war axe, you want the free masterwork weapon.
Isn't the entire point that you gain the bonus because you did 'spend the time growing up learning to use the weapon'?
I think the concern is that (to use the example) The dwarven rogue goes from Masterwork, proficient, with a +1 trait bonus (too much) to either proficient in that one weapon (a bit less than 'half' of EWP or MWP IMNSHO) OR +1 to hit with that one weapon (I'll say this is about half of weapon focus, but that might be generous) OR +2 on one CMB (a bit less than the 'improved' version of a lot of CMBs, you still draw an AOA, and get half the bonus).
It's the Goldilocks trait. "The first version was TOO STRONG. The second version was TOO WEAK." I think it says much about the weakness, balance wise, of EWP and MWP. (And SWP for that matter)
Masterwork weapon seemed fair to me. Or maybe the +1 to hit AND proficient.
|
|
Right, so 1 race can do it. Doesn't help the Dwarf Rogue who wants to take his father's Dwarven War Axe.APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.
Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves are proficient with battleaxes, heavy picks, and warhammers, and treat any weapon with the word “dwarven” in its name as a martial weapon.
Heirloom weapon: ...simple or martial weapon....
When you select this trait, choose one of the following benefits: proficiency with that specific weapon
Yes, a dwarf can use his daddy dwarven waraxe. (or a elf a elven blade)
A human can't use the dwarven waraxe his father looted during the dwarf-human wars.
Who doesn't have access to it? Go to town, pay 360gp, and have an NPC make it masterwork for you.I believe that Heirloom Weapon needed fixing, but that this isn't the right fix. The changes mean that, to any character without access to the Masterwork Transformation spell (e.g. PFS characters), the Trait is indeed worthless past roughly 3rd level.
You are making massive assumptions about the game world, and the location of the pcs. Have you never played a wilderness campaign or a mega-dungeon where there is no 'back to town'? Or if there is where there is no magic mart where the local wizard can whip up whatever spell you need? I've played in plenty of games where it is simply not an option to do this.
A trait should not require the use of a spell that does not come with the trait in order to function, and this one does. That is poor design. I agree with everyone that the original heirloom weapon was problematic, but this one is badly designed and poorly thought out.
And lets not forget about the fact that the two do not appear in the same book, I shouldnt need a spell from Ultimate magic to make a trait from another book work. How many dms right here on these boards have said they wont allow additional mega option books like UM but do take smaller books from the other lines?Like I said I dont particularly care that the trait got nerfed, but the way it was done is lazy and poorly thought out design.
If you don't have access to "magic mart" you don't have access to the possibility to enchant the masterwork weapon too.
Even if some of your party member take the magic item crafting feats, without the magic mart you don't have the components to enchant stuff (unless you add plenty of extra rules).
The rules are simplifications, you don't take 1000 gp in coins, pile them up, trust a masterwork sword in the middle of the money pile saying "mumbo jumbo" and presto, you have a +1 magical sword....
You are right there is more then a pile of coins, but there are no specifics as to how the magic item is made, that is up to the players, and it is present IN THE CORE RULES. There might not be a wizard or a magic shop, but the party wizard can go in the woods and find the materials he needs or whatever the dm requires in said case. The point is, it isn't specific, and the core rules of the game allow it.
Even if you dont have a caster in your party, ANY character can take master craftsman and within the core rules of the game, make a magic weapon out of a masterwork one. The specifics are left up to the group, but the option is there within the base rules of the game.
Ultimage magic is not part of the core rules and is not part of the base assumption of the game. It is an extra in a book that the trait does not come in. Even if you have giant magic marts, the trait can be rendered useless by the simple fact that no one in the group owns or uses (or allows) ultimate magic.
But a feat does.Right, so 1 race can do it. Doesn't help the Dwarf Rogue who wants to take his father's Dwarven War Axe.APG Half-Elf alternate racial feature.Haven't seen it. Got the text (and source)This trait used to be the only good way to get EWP for any 3/4 BAB class at 1st level. It can no longer do that, removing a ton of good rogue and inquisitor builds, and affecting some wierd alchemist ones, or preventing good concepts at level 1.Ancestral Arms.
Doesn't help the 1st level rogue whose build just got eliminated.
Personally I would be happy with masterwork simple or martial or regular exotic. Those are the weapons that are most likely to survive long enough in the field to become the kind of weapon heirloom weapon is supposed to be.
If I wanted to pick up a regular longsword and make up a backstory, I wouldn't need a trait. The mw part was what separated it from someone coming up with a random story for a weapon they would have bought anyway. If I wanted to pick up my grandfather's trusted, but old, sword from the fireplace and use it in the field, I could just skip the trait, buy a longsword, make up a story, and care less about the bonuses I'm not getting, all the while spending a trait on something useful. If I'm going to spend a trait on it, I expect to get something better than a weapon I probably would have got anyway in hopes that somewhere down the line, I can find someone to make it usable beyond the first few levels. Crunch isn't everything, but it can't be completely absent either.
In the case of exotic weapons, I can see the case for regular weapons, but, in most cases, regular simple and martial weapons would get used far too often to not be already in the field in use by somebody if they are capable of being used. Sure, there are corner cases where your father is retired, or disabled, or something like that, but in most cases, if its not being used already, there is probably a good reason for it, one good enough I am not going to be particularly eager to take into the field myself. I would leave it over the fireplace or in the training room where it belongs, and protect myself with something up to the task.