|
This is a barbarian we are talking about they have to save against buffs when raging stacking up all those buff might be hard. (yes not all of them, but the best ones)
The only existing barbarian is a superstitious barbarian? If so, the courageous weapon is giving him a +1/+3 to his saves against spells.
@ Rynjin
Please "you are stacking only a small bonus" is a argument that don't hold water. You are stacking a bonus. A bonus that cost way less than what it should cost.
By your logic every spellcaster should get a pearl of power for free. "A extra first level spell is only a small bonus"
A dusty rose prism ioun stone as "a +1 to AC is only a small bonus"
A cloak of resistance +1 "because it is only a small bonus"
and so on.
This is a barbarian we are talking about they have to save against buffs when raging stacking up all those buff might be hard. (yes not all of them, but the best ones)The only existing barbarian is a superstitious barbarian? If so, the courageous weapon is giving him a +1/+3 to his saves against spells.
@ Rynjin
Please "you are stacking only a small bonus" is a argument that don't hold water. You are stacking a bonus. A bonus that cost way less than what it should cost.
By your logic every spellcaster should get a pearl of power for free. "A extra first level spell is only a small bonus"
A dusty rose prism ioun stone as "a +1 to AC is only a small bonus"
A cloak of resistance +1 "because it is only a small bonus"
and so on.
The difference is that the barbarian isn't getting this bonus for free. This barbarian is paying for the bonus. He's paying 6000gp to get a +1 to his morale bonuses. He's paying a hell of a lot more than that to get a +2 - even if he uses Furious. He's not getting it for free - he's paying for the magical enhancements on his weapon!
|
|
The difference is that the barbarian isn't getting this bonus for free. This barbarian is paying for the bonus. He's paying 6000gp to get a +1 to his morale bonuses. He's paying a hell of a lot more than that to get a +2 - even if he uses Furious. He's not getting it for free - he's paying for the magical enhancements on his weapon!This is a barbarian we are talking about they have to save against buffs when raging stacking up all those buff might be hard. (yes not all of them, but the best ones)The only existing barbarian is a superstitious barbarian? If so, the courageous weapon is giving him a +1/+3 to his saves against spells.
@ Rynjin
Please "you are stacking only a small bonus" is a argument that don't hold water. You are stacking a bonus. A bonus that cost way less than what it should cost.
By your logic every spellcaster should get a pearl of power for free. "A extra first level spell is only a small bonus"
A dusty rose prism ioun stone as "a +1 to AC is only a small bonus"
A cloak of resistance +1 "because it is only a small bonus"
and so on.
+1 to strength and constitution, from a slotless item, above the enhancement bonuses he get as it is a unnamed enhancement.
+1 to an ability, enhancement = 1.000
Slotless *2
Not an enhancement ... it is not an option unless you use a tome, in that instance it would be 27.500 gp
Ok, that is a better starting point, so let's remove the material component from the tomes
+1 inherent bonus to a characteristic is 2.500. It is not a inherent bonus so it stack with them, that decidedly balance the drawback of requiring you to be a barbarian.
+1 strenght = 2.500, +1 constitution = 2.500, +1 to will saves, not resistance, slotless 2.000*2/3 = 1.333
You have already got back 6.333 gp.
You are superstitious? +1 to all saves vs spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. Another unnamed source of bonus to your ST. Well, I will not allow it to stack with another bonus to St given out from a courageous weapon, so it is still capped at +1. It is worth only about 666 gp.
A bard is using his perform? It increase.
Good hope, Heroism, etc. They are all increased.
"Flawed Pale Green Prism: This stone grants a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks. Price: 28,000 gp. "
You have just doubled this ioun stone bonuses. Notice the price. No need to be a barbarian to benefit from it.
It is worth it if you apply it to all morale bonuses even with a +1 weapon.
- * -
And "he's paying for the magical enhancements on his weapon!"
Oh yes, because the enhancement bonuses on the barbarian weapon don't do anything by themselves.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I.. uh..
Okay.
Courageous costs a +1 bonus. For the same cost as a +1 courageous weapon, you can have a +2 weapon, or a +1 keen weapon, or any number of other things.
A crit-fishing build is going to be more effective with a +1 keen weapon than a +2 weapon, because of how it works. Similarly, a morale-bonus build is going to be more effective with a +1 courageous weapon than with a +2 weapon. You hand the same sword to a fighter, it's practically worthless (unless you have a bard.)
Morale bonuses don't stack. You get one morale bonus to any given category - the largest. The courageous weapon bonus gives you a +1 or +2 increase to morale bonuses - with +2 costing 18,000gp and increasing the cost of any other weapon enhancements - of all kinds.
I can cast a spell to double a morale bonus. A first level spell!
I can take a trait that adds +1 to any d20 roll I enhance with Hero Points. Even after the fact! The same one can increase a bonus on all saves - a bonus that already stacks with cloaks of resistance!
You wanna know what's overpowered? Weapon focus. It stacks with strength. It stacks with weapon enhancements. It stacks with insight bonuses. It even stacks with some other feats! And it's only a small bonus, but it's like giving a sorcerer a caster level for free. Utterly broken!
Synergies exist. This one *hardly* breaks the game. A small increase to strength and con that stacks. Or a small increase to a certain type of bonus that doesn't stack. It's not like it's an increase to all dodge bonuses, FFS.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I.. uh..
Okay.
Courageous costs a +1 bonus. For the same cost as a +1 courageous weapon, you can have a +2 weapon, or a +1 keen weapon, or any number of other things.
A crit-fishing build is going to be more effective with a +1 keen weapon than a +2 weapon, because of how it works. Similarly, a morale-bonus build is going to be more effective with a +1 courageous weapon than with a +2 weapon. You hand the same sword to a fighter, it's practically worthless (unless you have a bard.)
Morale bonuses don't stack. You get one morale bonus to any given category - the largest. The courageous weapon bonus gives you a +1 or +2 increase to morale bonuses - with +2 costing 18,000gp and increasing the cost of any other weapon enhancements - of all kinds.
I can cast a spell to double a morale bonus. A first level spell!
I can take a trait that adds +1 to any d20 roll I enhance with Hero Points. Even after the fact! The same one can increase a bonus on all saves - a bonus that already stacks with cloaks of resistance!
You wanna know what's overpowered? Weapon focus. It stacks with strength. It stacks with weapon enhancements. It stacks with insight bonuses. It even stacks with some other feats! And it's only a small bonus, but it's like giving a sorcerer a caster level for free. Utterly broken!
Synergies exist. This one *hardly* breaks the game. A small increase to strength and con that stacks. Or a small increase to a certain type of bonus that doesn't stack. It's not like it's an increase to all dodge bonuses, FFS.
Thank you for breaking this down much more effectively then my post did. +1
Stacking stuff to make yourself awesome isn't overpowered... its the basics of the game. And by itself, Courageous just isn't worth more then +1.
Okay, people keep bringing up Bardic Performance, and I don't understand why. Only two Performances give any morale bonuses at all, and those two only grant it to saves.
If you think Inspire Courage is a morale bonus to hit and damage, you should reread the ability. It's a morale bonus to saves vs fear and charm and a competence bonus to hit and damage.
The other performance is Inspire Heroics, which grants a +4 morale bonus to saves.
Very true! However, the 3rd level bard spell Good Hope gives +2 morale bonus to attack, damage, all saves, skills and ability checks. That might be part of what people are referring to when talking about bards, supposing they aren't specifically talking about performance.
Any way, are you people sure Courageous is the problem and not the barbarian? The discussion seems to keep circling back to "plus whatever to strength and con is way too good!" even though that is really only an issue with one single class out of 22.
|
|
Heroism
School enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 2, sorcerer/wizard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range touch
Target creature touched
Duration 10 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
This spell imbues a single creature with great bravery and morale in battle. The target gains a +2 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks.
Good Hope add a bonus to damage and ability check, but it last way less.
Good HopeSchool enchantment (compulsion) [mind-affecting]; Level bard 3
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Targets one living creature/level, no two of which may be more than 30 ft. apart
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless); Spell Resistance yes (harmless)
This spell instills powerful hope in the subjects. Each affected creature gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws, attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and weapon damage rolls.
Good hope counters and dispels crushing despair.
The best effect is to double the bonus of a 28.000 gp item:
Ioun stone
Flawed Pale Green Prism: This stone grants a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls, saves, skill checks, and ability checks. Price: 28,000 gp.
Usually doubling a item benefit quadruple the cost. A 84.000 gp benefit for the cost of a +1 courageous spiked gauntlet, 8.000 gp.
And none of those benefits require you to be a barbarian, or raging.
So, you still want to say that the problem is the barbarian?
Okay, people keep bringing up Bardic Performance, and I don't understand why. Only two Performances give any morale bonuses at all, and those two only grant it to saves.
If you think Inspire Courage is a morale bonus to hit and damage, you should reread the ability. It's a morale bonus to saves vs fear and charm and a competence bonus to hit and damage.
The other performance is Inspire Heroics, which grants a +4 morale bonus to saves.
Very true! However, the 3rd level bard spell Good Hope gives +2 morale bonus to attack, damage, all saves, skills and ability checks. That might be part of what people are referring to when talking about bards, supposing they aren't specifically talking about performance.
Any way, are you people sure Courageous is the problem and not the barbarian? The discussion seems to keep circling back to "plus whatever to strength and con is way too good!" even though that is really only an issue with one single class out of 22.
Oh the issue is all of the above. The problem is people not being satisfied with what abilities actually do. They simply crave more and more virtual, imaginary, non-existent power.
Haha…
Seriously though…
GMW isn’t modified by Furious. So that little trick is right out. Furious modifies the weapon’s actual enhancement modifier, not the effect of some random spell. You gotta pay a pretty penny to get your extra bonuses to morale modifiers.
Courageous is probably intended to give a bonus to fear saves only. That is what it says it does. Yes, you can read it to give a bonus to all morale bonuses ever… but that doesn’t seem intentional in the least. YMMV.
Furious is decent. It is a very cost effective, maybe a little too cost effective. But… close. It is essentially a +2 for the cost of +1… when conditions are right. And +0 for the cost of a +1 when they’re not. Except… most of the time the conditions will probably be right.
I'm just saying that from what I've seen (and admittedly I started skimming the thread because I'm not really here to discuss balance issues) half the arguments kept going back to the barbarian and his furious courageous weapon being OP.
If you have a buffer in the party you probably wouldn't even bother with that ioun stone. When my party's monk wanted to upgrade her amulet of mighty fists, I suggested she went for courageous because I play a bard. She went for heartseeker instead because she figured ignoring concealment would be more handy than getting a simple +1 when I was already buffing her and everyone else in the party with +6 attack, +5 damage, +1d6 sonic most of the time.
*shrug*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just saying that from what I've seen (and admittedly I started skimming the thread because I'm not really here to discuss balance issues) half the arguments kept going back to the barbarian and his furious courageous weapon being OP.
If you have a buffer in the party you probably wouldn't even bother with that ioun stone. When my party's monk wanted to upgrade her amulet of mighty fists, I suggested she went for courageous because I play a bard. She went for heartseeker instead because she figured ignoring concealment would be more handy than getting a simple +1 when I was already buffing her and everyone else in the party with +6 attack, +5 damage, +1d6 sonic most of the time.
*shrug*
Remember that AoMF property limitations:
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.
The Heartseeker property can be applicable to unarmed attacks since it would allow her unarmed strikes to ignore concealment effects; the Courageous property has no elements applicable to unarmed attacks, and therefore would not be a property usable with AoMF.
Back on topic...
Remy is correct, the Furious property only enhances the base weapon's property, making it 2 higher than what it normally is while raging. Greater Magic Weapon only increases it to being a +X enhancement modifier, where X is dependant upon caster level.
@ Diego Rossi: Your math seems a little off. Having somebody spend 112,000 gold to double the effects of that ioun stone makes no sense, nor is it in line with what's already written for RAW in that matter:
Multiple Similar Abilities: For items with multiple similar abilities that don't take up space on a character's body, use the following formula: Calculate the price of the single most costly ability, then add 75% of the value of the next most costly ability, plus 1/2 the value of any other abilities.
Multiple Different Abilities: Abilities such as an attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar, and their values are simply added together to determine the cost. For items that take up a space on a character's body, each additional power not only has no discount but instead has a 50% increase in price.
So to clarify, there is only one conclusion here: since it's the same exact effect as before, you're only calculating 200% of the total value of the base effect (that is, doubling the original cost). Since it's a slotless item, there is no 50% increase to the additional power, as the 50% increase only applies to slotted items.
That being said, your calculations should be 56,000 gold, not the ridiculous 112,000.
In addition, it only amplifies the effects of Morale Bonuses being applied equivalent to half of the modifier, and it would require that effect (or an effect similar to it) for it to function. After all, if a character has no Morale Bonuses, the second part of the ability is useless. If you're not throwing in the pre-requisites (Rage spell/class feature, Bard/Wizard spells) and/or the costs for those pre-requisites (specific class/party members, specific items), of course it's going to seem overpowered, because you're cheating yourself out of things that are required in the first place to have it function.
**EDIT** Not to mention spending that kind of money in comparison to a PC's WBL means they're weaker in other areas. It's when you ignore the WBL guidelines that it becomes a problem, and that causes a lot more problems than a Barbarian who can rage better. What about a Wizard who has so high of DC's that creatures need 20 to succeed, and has literally zero chance to run out of spell slots? Much worse than a Barbarian who may or may not be slightly better at killing things.
|
Since when did the rules forum become the place for arguing whether something is over powered or not? Shouldn't this kind of conversation be on the general board?
Or are we arguing the RAW based on whether it's overpowered or not, which is a fairly weak argument. There's a lot of really, really good options for various classes, should we argue whether or not they need to be changed too?
|
Since when did the rules forum become the place for arguing whether something is over powered or not? Shouldn't this kind of conversation be on the general board?
Or are we arguing the RAW based on whether it's overpowered or not, which is a fairly weak argument. There's a lot of really, really good options for various classes, should we argue whether or not they need to be changed too?
Then RAW, the Wizard doesn't exist, because sure, that's how things work.
Right?;)
|
|
Since when did the rules forum become the place for arguing whether something is over powered or not? Shouldn't this kind of conversation be on the general board?
Or are we arguing the RAW based on whether it's overpowered or not, which is a fairly weak argument. There's a lot of really, really good options for various classes, should we argue whether or not they need to be changed too?
Then RAW, the Wizard doesn't exist, because sure, that's how things work.
Right?;)
Hehe, yes :)
Since when did the rules forum become the place for arguing whether something is over powered or not? Shouldn't this kind of conversation be on the general board?
Or are we arguing the RAW based on whether it's overpowered or not, which is a fairly weak argument. There's a lot of really, really good options for various classes, should we argue whether or not they need to be changed too?
Indeed. What the rules say has absolutely nothing to do with what we think is balanced, especially since everyone has their own opinion on what is or isn't balanced. "I don't think this is balanced, ergo it can't be rules-legal" is a very weak argument, especially when the devs have said more than once that Pathfinder is not meant to have 100% perfect balance.
It's hard to say what the developers intended for the item until there's been some feedback from them. Courageous can be very powerful, but it's not like magic items that are powerful with the right combination of buffs, feats, and class features are unprecedented in Pathfinder. If you think Courageous takes it a bit too far, then houserule it in your games and/or ask the dev team to change it.
Usually doubling a item benefit quadruple the cost. A 84.000 gp benefit for the cost of a +1 courageous spiked gauntlet, 8.000 gp.
Come on, man, you don't believe this and so far nobody else has argued that using an item in a blatantly unintended way gives that sort of benefit, so don't use an argument you don't believe and very few other people do either to try and prove your point. It's just dishonest arguing.
|
|
@Darksol the Painbringer
check how the cost of doubling an item ability work in the magic item section.
All the formulas are "Bonus squared*X money".
So doubling the ioun stone bonuses would multiply the cost by 4.
That would be 112.000 gp. subtract the 26.000 gp you have already paid and you get 84.000 gp.
|
|
Come on, man, you don't believe this and so far nobody else has argued that using an item in a blatantly unintended way gives that sort of benefit, so don't use an argument you don't believe and very few other people do either to try and prove your point. It's just dishonest arguing.Usually doubling a item benefit quadruple the cost. A 84.000 gp benefit for the cost of a +1 courageous spiked gauntlet, 8.000 gp.
Excuse me? It is the basis of the other thread and the pro arguments in this thread are made to confirm that.
"It applies to all morale bonuses".It is that the pro opinion or not?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Come on, man, you don't believe this and so far nobody else has argued that using an item in a blatantly unintended way gives that sort of benefit, so don't use an argument you don't believe and very few other people do either to try and prove your point. It's just dishonest arguing.Usually doubling a item benefit quadruple the cost. A 84.000 gp benefit for the cost of a +1 courageous spiked gauntlet, 8.000 gp.
This is actually hilarious compared to Fate's Favored which is completely legal and can get you hundreds of thousands of gold worth.
Come on, man, you don't believe this and so far nobody else has argued that using an item in a blatantly unintended way gives that sort of benefit, so don't use an argument you don't believe and very few other people do either to try and prove your point. It's just dishonest arguing.Usually doubling a item benefit quadruple the cost. A 84.000 gp benefit for the cost of a +1 courageous spiked gauntlet, 8.000 gp.
Excuse me? It is the basis of the other thread and the pro arguments in this thread are made to confirm that.
"It applies to all morale bonuses".
It is that the pro opinion or not?
You know what I meant.
The "I can totes just wear a gauntlet I never use and get the benefits" part.
|
|
Come on, man, you don't believe this and so far nobody else has argued that using an item in a blatantly unintended way gives that sort of benefit, so don't use an argument you don't believe and very few other people do either to try and prove your point. It's just dishonest arguing.Usually doubling a item benefit quadruple the cost. A 84.000 gp benefit for the cost of a +1 courageous spiked gauntlet, 8.000 gp.
Excuse me? It is the basis of the other thread and the pro arguments in this thread are made to confirm that.
"It applies to all morale bonuses".
It is that the pro opinion or not?
You know what I meant.
The "I can totes just wear a gauntlet I never use and get the benefits" part.
The discussion about the courages weapon power started in this thread: Can I gain the benefits of an enchantment from a weapon I'm not using?
Getting the benefit of the ability at the minimum cost is the goal of at least some of the people arguing in favour of "it applies to all morale bonuses".Quotes from there:
Darksol the Painbringer :
As far as I can tell, the Courageous property doesn't have any language to support requiring attack rolls to function. As long as it's wielded (for the case of the Spiked Gauntlet, if it's equipped onto his hand), it grants the listed benefit. No attack rolls are required to add these benefits, meaning they should still function regardless.
Mattastrophic:
There has been some weirdness over the years about how these sorts of weapon properties work. In short, though, I would say that, in the end, defending works one way (requires attacks), while properties like menacing, courageous, and furious work differently (doesn't require attacks), after considering all the weirdness that would occur if the wielder had to attack with them.
Now here's a puzzler: How does bane interact with courageous when used by a barbarian?
-Matt
Mojorat:
I missed the wielding in 1 hand thing. And i fully agree they dont need attack rolls. The weapon just has to be wielded.
Scavion:
So basically he needs to be wearing armor spikes instead of a spiked gauntlet because of silly shenanigans where people can't seem to grasp that you could totally spiked fist someone while holding onto something in that hand. Ever hear of a pommel strike? Well ix nay that and just punch them with your spiked gauntlet.
Shoulder checking with Armor Spikes is legit however and you can totally do that to threaten adjacent spaces while at the same time threatening with a reach weapon.
Kelarith:
If you wanted to simplify it, rule that as long as he has someone in the 5' square close to him, he is threatening with the gauntlet, and gets the bonuses (at that point he's *wielding* the weapon). If there isn't anyone threatened by the gauntlets, he doesn't get the bonus (at that point he isn't wielding them, only wearing them).
Malachi Silverclaw:
Back to sanity.
'Wield' is not a defined game term. Sometimes it's used to mean 'attack with', sometimes it means simply 'hold', and sometimes it means something in between.
We have to use our thinky bits to work out which sense of the word applies in each situation. For the Courageous and Furious special abilities it means 'held', and for a spiked gauntlet (or other worn weapon) it means 'worn, but the hand wearing it can't be holding a different weapon'.
The barbarian isn't going to have varying hit points based on whether he's attacking or thinking about attacking in the near future. He either has it in hand (or worn) or he doesn't.
From this thread:
Remy Blaster
Lastly, all it does it boost saves vs fear. Having that running all the while it is equipped seems perfectly reasonable.
I see a fair bit of people supporting the idea that wield mean wear when you speak of spiked gauntlets or armor spikes.
In this thread. This thread is NOT that thread.
And even if it were, using their argument (which you do not agree with) to try and prove YOUR point is just weird, at best.
I see a fair bit of people supporting the idea that wield mean wear when you speak of spiked gauntlets or armor spikes.
Wielding a weapon means it's drawn out and ready to attack with. In those cases, if the Spiked Gauntlets or Armor Spikes are equipped and the character can make attacks with it while it's in hand, barring abilities/effects that would prevent the character from making the attack (such as the Dazed condition), they are considered wielding the weapon.
A character with IUS is constantly wielding an Unarmed Strike, and they can't unequip it or break it or whatever. Abstracting from a Spiked Gauntlet to simply a Gauntlet, the Gauntlet weapon follows all of the rules for Unarmed Strike, aside that the default damage is Lethal instead of Non-Lethal (and the -4 penalty applies to Non-Lethal attacks). It also doesn't threaten like the Unarmed Strike does, unless the character has IUS. A Gauntlet can be enhanced like a weapon, but it still only improves Unarmed Strikes made with limbs that said gauntlet is applied to.
Those weapons do not follow the same rules as your traditional Greatsword or Earthbreaker, because they are completely different types of weapons altogether. You're comparing apples to oranges, and don't get me started on the pineapples that are shields, because you can very well make a +X[AC] Bashing Courageous Shield, use its AC, and still receive its 'passive' benefits.
Now can we please stay back on topic as to what the Courageous Property and its capabilities are, instead of talking about Minmaxer theories that are irrelevant?
The Heartseeker property can be applicable to unarmed attacks since it would allow her unarmed strikes to ignore concealment effects; the Courageous property has no elements applicable to unarmed attacks, and therefore would not be a property usable with AoMF.
That is t otally unjustified, I do not even know what kind of argument it could be.
The Heartseeker property can be applicable to unarmed attacks since it would allow her unarmed strikes to ignore concealment effects; the Courageous property has no elements applicable to unarmed attacks, and therefore would not be a property usable with AoMF.That is totally unjustified, I do not even know what kind of argument it could be.
Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks.
I could be even more stupid about this and say that since you can't put weapon special abilities on unarmed strikes, you can't put any weapon special abilities on an AOMF, but I know better. The intent is that the property being placed has relevance to unarmed attacks.
How exactly does the Courageous property tie in to unarmed attacks? It enhances Morale Bonuses the character is affected by, as well as the Morale Bonus to Saves V.S. Fear, but both of these effects have nothing applicable to unarmed strikes.
Please keep on topic. If you want to debate what can and cannot go into an Amulet of Mighty Fists, make a thread for it. I'll be happy to talk about it, but not here.
Since when did the rules forum become the place for arguing whether something is over powered or not? Shouldn't this kind of conversation be on the general board?
Or are we arguing the RAW based on whether it's overpowered or not, which is a fairly weak argument. There's a lot of really, really good options for various classes, should we argue whether or not they need to be changed too?
Thank you. Really. We are supposed to be discussing the rules here. We do this based on what's officially written; that is in the books, FAQ and errata. It's not the forum for discussing how it should be if it were balanced.
I doesn't matter if it seems underpowered, overpowered or just right. It matters that the rules say that you add half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum +1) to any morale bonus from any other source. That is what's in the book, so dem's the breaks. GMs can then change or ban it for their game if they dislike it, and that is fine.
EDIT:
It didn't even have to be the monk, it could've been our paladin and not changed the point that I was trying to make: In a party with a dedicated buffer at higher levels, that single +1 to all morale bonuses (or +2 if you're a big spender) can end up being less attractive than another +1 enhancement simply because of the sheer amount of buffs being bestowed upon you already.
|
|
Wielding, in my opinion, means in the hand and ready to use for combat. I get this from the intent of the Dueling Enchantment. If weapon enchantments only worked when the weapon is used in an attack, then this weapon enchantment would be utterly useless.
Impact also gives us great insight into what wielding means. If wielding means that you have to attack with said weapon the same round you gain it's benefits, then how the heck are you supposed to get the bonus to bull rushes? Without a few feats and/or class abilities (such as the Knockback rage power) this bonus would be completely useless. I doubt that was the intent, and so I feel that wielding means "At the ready". It just so happens spiked gauntlets are ready most of time, except when that hand is holding something else.
This special ability can only be placed on melee weapons that are not light weapons. An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger. In addition, any bull rush combat maneuver the wielder attempts while wielding the weapon gains a bonus equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus; this includes all bull rush attempts, not only those in which a weapon is used, such as Bull Rush Strike, Shield Slam, or Unseat.
|
|
Getting the benefit of the ability at the minimum cost is the goal of at least some of the people arguing in favour of "it applies to all morale bonuses".
Isn't it normally a little hard to know exactly why people are arguing for and against a particular issue? Making assumptions = bad, and sometimes even rude.
Getting the benefit of the ability at the minimum cost is the goal of at least some of the people arguing in favour of "it applies to all morale bonuses".Isn't it normally a little hard to know exactly why people are arguing for and against a particular issue? Making assumptions = bad, and sometimes even rude.
People that are arguing against it are doing so because they hate puppies.
;)
The reply to HeroLab was an official response via their direct communications on how the rule works in Pathfinder. Not off the cuff or non-official.
The issue people are having is that if that is the case, then why did they not errata it, or make a FAQ?
I'm curious, to all those people saying that it obviously applies only to fear bonuses...
Where the heck are you seeing "fear" anywhere in the text?
How could it possibly apply specifically to fear effects without even mentioning fear effects? Or even fear?
"This special ability can only be added to a melee weapon.
A courageous weapon fortifies the wielder's courage and morale in battle. The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the weapon's enhancement bonus (minimum 1)."
The reply to HeroLab was an official response via their direct communications on how the rule works in Pathfinder. Not off the cuff or non-official.
By definition and by word of Paizo, anything that is not an official post from the Design Team in the form of a FAQ or Errata is unofficial.
@137ben: Well, the first effect of the enhancement applies to fear effects only, so it's "obviously" the same for the second effect that says nothing about anything like that. Or something. And actually, according to the quoted email, the second effect applies to morale bonuses on all saves, fear or otherwise... but wait, where did that come from? That has no basis in anything that's written in the rules!
@James Risner: It's kind of hard to accept it as an official ruling when it isn't in any of the places that are supposed to matter; an email quoted in a post on an entirely different site just doesn't seem very official. If we can't even take what the developers say on these boards as 100% correct rules interpretation (which we've been told not to), how are we supposed to play it by some email the veracity of which we can't even confirm?
Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
Until we see an FAQ/errata here on this site, I'm going to argue in favour of the RAW.
If the ability didn't have that last line in most cases it would stop functioning every tine somone did a moral effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
SKR in the previous thread decided to pitch in with just a few words to validate the email.
Messageboard posts on a subjects made by the design and development team are not "official rulings" on the games. Clarifications in FAQ posts and errata are official rulings.
This serves a couple of purposes.
First, it allows the design and development team to interact with fans, and have rules discussions with fans, in an exploratory, argumentative (and I mean that in a construct sense) and even sometimes a playful manner without the fear of taking such comments out of context. This is good for everyone.
Second, it does not force anyone playing the game to participate in or wade through message board threads (some of which can be a thousand or more posts long) in order to find official rulings. Many of us enjoy doing such things, but not everyone, and it should not be seen as a requirement for playing Pathfinder.
Until it's been answered in the FAQ or errata'ed, playing it by that email is still house rule territory.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The issue people are having is that if that is the case, then why did they not errata it, or make a FAQ?
Because issuing errata and FAQ for anything is an involved process. A process they reserve (clearly from observation) for things that have been well misunderstood. I don't think many people outside the forums believe that courageous works on Rage.
Until we see an FAQ/errata here on this site, I'm going to argue in favour of the RAW.
Expect you are intentionally interpreting RAW different than most. In a way that is awkwardly powerful. This can only be accomplished by ignoring context.
The problem I am having James is that the clarification given to Lone Wolf doesn't make any sense. This sentence specifically:
Our reading of this is that the second part is referring to other morale bonuses to save vs. fear – for example, a fighter’s Bravery ability –
The problem with this sentence is that the Fighter's bravery ability is not a morale bonus, it is an untyped bonus. So what then does the courageous property apply to? How can we be expected to conclude that courageous applies to Fighter's bravery at all since it is not a morale bonus? Without SKR's clarification to lonewolf we would have had no clue that courageous was intended to apply to that ability.
The problem I am having James is that the clarification given to Lone Wolf doesn't make any sense. This sentence specifically:
Our reading of this is that the second part is referring to other morale bonuses to save vs. fear – for example, a fighter’s Bravery ability –The problem with this sentence is that the Fighter's bravery ability is not a morale bonus, it is an untyped bonus. So what then does the courageous property apply to? How can we be expected to conclude that courageous applies to Fighter's bravery at all since it is not a morale bonus? Without SKR's clarification to lonewolf we would have had no clue that courageous was intended to apply to that ability.
I believe that statement (re: Fighters' Bravery Ability) was part of the question, meaning it was posed to the Design Team from Lone Wolf. The answer by SKR I believe was just the short snippet.
So, question:
--The Courageous Weapon power (Ultimate Equipment pg. 138) says “The wielder gains a morale bonus on saving throws against fear equal to the weapon’s enhancement bonus. In addition, any morale bonus the wielder gains from any other source is increased by half the wielder’s enhancement bonus (minimum 1).” Our reading of this is that the second part is referring to other morale bonuses to save vs. fear – for example, a fighter’s Bravery ability – those abilities are increased in strength, so that this weapon power isn’t useless for fighters. Others read this as improving all morale bonuses to anything else on the character – they’re usually adding it to a barbarian, to improve the rage bonuses. It seems that improving rage to 1½x its normal strength is a very powerful effect, which should cost much more than the +1 bonus with this weapon, so we wanted to verify how it should be used.
And answer:
The second part should only affect morale bonuses to saves (fear or otherwise).
He was silent as to any possible examples provided within the context of the question, as the response was directed at the ultimate question not any ancillary example.
Oh ok. So the question was asked with incorrect information. In either case, Fighter's bravery bonus shouldn't be a factor in any of this as it is not a morale bonus. If this clarification is to be the ruling, then you would only benefit from the courageous enchantment while under the effects of Remove Fear, Aura of Courage, Inspire Courage, etc. Not to mention the fact that these morale bonuses will not stack with the morale bonus provided by the weapon (morale bonus to saves against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus), they will only increase by half the weapon's enhancement bonus(+1 or +2). I have to agree with the people who have been saying all along that this interpretation makes this ability very subpar.
The other thing that's bugging me is that the email from SKR to Hero Lab said "morale bonuses to saves, fear or otherwise", which would mean that if you had something giving you a morale bonus to non-fear saves, it would still apply. Which is even stranger.
EDIT: Retracted. Wasn't paying close attention.
Oh ok. So the question was asked with incorrect information. In either case, Fighter's bravery bonus shouldn't be a factor in any of this as it is not a morale bonus. If this clarification is to be the ruling, then you would only benefit from the courageous enchantment while under the effects of Remove Fear, Aura of Courage, Inspire Courage, etc. Not to mention the fact that these morale bonuses will not stack with the morale bonus provided by the weapon (morale bonus to saves against fear equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus), they will only increase by half the weapon's enhancement bonus(+1 or +2). I have to agree with the people who have been saying all along that this interpretation makes this ability very subpar.
EDIT: As clarified below, they don't stack but they get a minor increase. This is for all saving throws with morale bonuses, though.
So there's a constant morale bonus on saving throws v. fear, then a minor bonus to all saving throws if the character already has a morale bonus to saves in place from another source.
@fregod99: And yet that still doesn't make sense according to the RAW. Bravery does not grant a Morale Bonus to Saves V.S. Fear. SKR's clarification is the only grounds on which Bravery is even remotely applicable, because although it's a bonus to Saves V.S. Fear, it's not a Morale Bonus, which is called out in the RAW.
To be honest, the only way SKR's interpretation (or to be more precise according to his statements, the supposed collective viewpoint of the design team, of which he is currently no longer a part of) would be considered correct is if the "morale bonus" increase being referred to in the second sentence was treated as flavor text, since the literal definition of morale refers to the confidence or discipline of a person or group, the only feasible explanation I draw from which people claim it only affects Fear Saves (and for it to affect the Fighter's Bravery).
But "morale bonus," as far as I can tell, is a kind of conjoined game term; bonus is a positive integer/modifier being granted to a specific roll or result of an action/activity a creature takes or is given. Morale is a prefix type applied to a bonus (or even possibly a penalty) so as to help determine the stacking of bonuses. Throw them together, and you have a type of positive modifier being applied to a roll or result of an action/activity.
Using a conjoined game term, which has a completely different meaning from the flavor text for which their interpretations would be correct, is very, very poor choosing on their part to say the least, if not outright false advertising (that is, the weapon property, not the published product it comes from).
This is exactly why I called for a FAQ/Errata; because they are using an already defined (and conjoined) game term to something that is otherwise completely different. And until such subjects come to pass, the RAW would disagree with the Dev Team's statements heavily.