|
Here is the Heirloom Weapon weapon trait:
Heirloom Weapon
You carry a non-masterwork simple or martial weapon that has been passed down from generation to generation in your family.
Benefit: 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
a +2 trait bonus on one kind of combat maneuver when using that specific weapon.Note: You pay the standard gp cost for the weapon.
Now, can a race with Weapon Familiarity, such as, the Dwarf, choose a Dwarven Waraxe, as they treat them as Martial Weapons?
I am trying to get the best answer I can, as I ask for PFS.
I've heard it used to get Elven Curveblade, using racial weapon familiarity, so I assume this is a acceptable combination.
I read it as a yes. A rule designed to add a little roleplay flavor. Allowing a player to access a weapon not normally accessible by that class
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You get to select a simple or martial weapon.
A Dwarven Waraxe is neither of those.
It is exotic.
Dwarves simply treat it as though it were martial.
This case is very comparable to that of the recent Mithral FAQ.
A Mithral Breastplate is still considered medium armor (interacting as such with the Defender of the Society Trait, and the Brawling, Bouyant, and Hosteling enchantments), but wearers get to treat it as though it was light.
As an alternative, there is a Player Convention Boon out this Season that grants you the Weapon Familiarity Racial Trait of a Core Race. My Oread used it to gain Dwarven Weapon Familiarity so he could wield a Dwarven Waraxe.
Perhaps seek that Boon out, instead.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whether an item is 'simple', 'martial', or 'exotic' is nothing more than a abstract concept. There is nothing inherent in an ax - or in any other item - that makes it any of these three things. The term is only use to describe how the item is *viewed* by player characters of Pathfinder. "That thing is exotic to me!".
Weapon Familiarity changes how those items are viewed. Something exotic may not be as exotic as it once was, given the right parentage. An item that Pathfinder characters think of as "exotic" is not exotic at all for those who grew up around its use!
So, to say an item "IS" an exotic weapon is wrong, grammatically and logically. There is nothing in the world that IS exotic in an absolute sense. That is like saying things can be FOREIGN in an absolute sense, so that they are also FOREIGN to individuals who have it as part of their history and daily experience. It's just not true.
So, yes - if you render a weapon martial by the establishment of your character's personal history through trait and race selection, then it would also be martial for all other purposes up to and including heirloom weapon.
Agree that the new Mithral ruling would suggest "no". But I see no reason to not allow this. It makes sense from a flavor and balance standpoint.
If they get to treat it like a Martial, it works. And the book say they do, so i guess it Does work.
I say it's a go. Weapon Familiarity specifically says you "...treat any weapon with the word "Dwarven" in its name as a martial weapon." That would apply not only to what kind of proficiency is needed but all rules elements interactions. This would also mean that a Dwarf can craft a "Dwarven" weapon with the martial DC of 15 rather than the exotic DC of 18.
Now, if it had been phrased differently, such as adding "for the purpose of determining proficiency" then that would be entirely different. But as it stands, it applies to any effects related to weapon classification.
This is how I understand it. However it's enough of a grey area that you can expect table variance in a PFS situation.
Hollister: that's my quote, not Kazaan's. ;)
Kazaan, the grey area comes in as "treated as" isn't clearly defined. I'm with you in thinking that it should work the same, no matter if we're looking at a trait, skill or a feat. It seems clear that other don't agree with us though, and it really hinges on how you see "treated as" in context of the Weapon Familiarity racial trait.
|
|
Hollister: that's my quote, not Kazaan's. ;),\
My bad! I was late for work and trying to type fast and messed up :) I'd edit but the window for that closed.
Kazaan, the grey area comes in as "treated as" isn't clearly defined.
I think it is actually pretty clear. All weapons that we normally think of as exotic, we "treat" as exotic - because they are exotic to us.
Weapon Familiarity allows players to treat various weapons as other than the norm; thus, a weapon that is 'exotic' to most becomes merely martial due to their racial experience.
This feels clear to me and as Carol from The Walking Dead would say, "This is not a real problem."
You get to select a simple or martial weapon.
A Dwarven Waraxe is neither of those.
It is exotic.
Dwarves simply treat it as though it were martial.
This case is very comparable to that of the recent Mithral FAQ.
A Mithral Breastplate is still considered medium armor (interacting as such with the Defender of the Society Trait, and the Brawling, Bouyant, and Hosteling enchantments), but wearers get to treat it as though it was light.
As an alternative, there is a Player Convention Boon out this Season that grants you the Weapon Familiarity Racial Trait of a Core Race. My Oread used it to gain Dwarven Weapon Familiarity so he could wield a Dwarven Waraxe.
Perhaps seek that Boon out, instead.
Where can I find this Boon?
|
|
Where can I find this Boon?As an alternative, there is a Player Convention Boon out this Season that grants you the Weapon Familiarity Racial Trait of a Core Race. My Oread used it to gain Dwarven Weapon Familiarity so he could wield a Dwarven Waraxe.
Perhaps seek that Boon out, instead.
It's a Season 6 Player Convention Boon.
If you can't make it to a large enough Convention, there is a Boon Trading thread over in the PFS Forum where you could try looking for one up for trade.
If you don't have any Boons of your own to trade, sometimes you'll have luck trading Paizo merchandise, like figs or Player Companions.
However you go about it, just *don't* offer money for one.
|
|
I would rather not deal with table variance.
If it is disputed enough for me to expect such variance, I would rather drop the whole thing.
This is the first thread I've ever encountered where the majority opinion is in support of the combination.
Usually the overwhelming consensus is that you cannot grab Exotic weapons with Heirloom Weapon.
|
|
With so many of the new racial weapons put out recently, I figured it would come up.
Also, using one would be thematically appropriate for a number of PCs.
If it's commonly contested, I would still rather avoid it.
At least I am not the guy with the Fetchling Synthesist Summoner.
I know at least, better than that.
|
You get to select a simple or martial weapon.
A Dwarven Waraxe is neither of those.
It is exotic.
Dwarves simply treat it as though it were martial.
This case is very comparable to that of the recent Mithral FAQ.
A Mithral Breastplate is still considered medium armor (interacting as such with the Defender of the Society Trait, and the Brawling, Bouyant, and Hosteling enchantments), but wearers get to treat it as though it was light.
It isn't, though. Mithral says it counts as one category lighter "for the purposes of movement and other limitations." Or, to put it simply, mithral counts as one category lighter some of the time, but not all of the time. The FAQ in question is explaining how to tell the difference between the some and not-some times.
By contrast, weapon familiarity has no such restriction. For members of the appropriate race, it is a martial weapon, full stop. Anything that checks "is this martial" will return "yes" for such characters, including Heirloom Weapon.
I would rather not deal with table variance.
If it is disputed enough for me to expect such variance, I would rather drop the whole thing.
This is the first thread I've ever encountered where the majority opinion is in support of the combination.
Usually the overwhelming consensus is that you cannot grab Exotic weapons with Heirloom Weapon.
My experience has been the opposite of yours, with this being the norm from my perspective. I don't play PFS or frequent it's threads so that may be where the seeming disconnect comes from.
On table variance, I warn of that for anything that's not 100% ironclad(or darn close) for PFS. Even if the VAST majority view a rule the way you do, it sucks if you find one that sees it the other way. I hate to steer people away from what I find a valid reading of the rules, but it's the safer bet and prevents spending a lot of time on a character that may end up less useful, or even unplayable, if you have bad luck on a DM draw.
Something else to consider is that the martial weapon proficiency feat requires the weapon to be martial and yet you can still choose an exotic with the racial familiarity. So the precedent there would seem to suggest it works.
The confusing reality is that martial weapon proficiency is more of a trait level power than a feat level power. Of course, traits weren't part of core, so it's a feat. But if the game got a do-over, it would probably have been a trait.
|
|
Well, I have had the occasional Judge get some very profound rules confusions/misunderstandings.
Examples:
1) Believed one could not take a 5ft. Step if you used your Move Action for any purpose, not just to move.
2) Thought there was "50% chance" of hitting an ally, when attacking a creature grappling said ally.
3) Was under the impression that the Rogue, and only the Rogue, could use the Disable Device skill.
Now, eventually, these were solved, and similar cases are rare.
Thing is, I usually have newer players ask me questions, whilst the Judge is busy.
These speeds things along, and it is usually appreciated all around.
I don't like bringing anything rules questionable to the table though.
It slows things down, and sticks me with the label of "that guy", which I do not want.
I don't want to be stuck in the same group as the "Fetchling Synthesist Summoner" guy, I mentioned above.
If I were to re-design it, I'd say that MWP gave you your choice of proficiency with all martial weapons or proficiency with one martial weapon and +1 to attack with it.Something else to consider is that the martial weapon proficiency feat requires the weapon to be martial and yet you can still choose an exotic with the racial familiarity. So the precedent there would seem to suggest it works.
The confusing reality is that martial weapon proficiency is more of a trait level power than a feat level power. Of course, traits weren't part of core, so it's a feat. But if the game got a do-over, it would probably have been a trait.
It would also be nice to have MWP actually stated it gives proficiency. As is, it JUST removes penalties, much like Throw Anything, but it's assumed that one gives proficiency and the other doesn't... Many things in pathfinder could benefit from clearer and more consistent wording.
|
|
It would also be nice to have MWP actually stated it gives proficiency. As is, it JUST removes penalties, much like Throw Anything, but it's assumed that one gives proficiency and the other doesn't... Many things in pathfinder could benefit from clearer and more consistent wording.
I hope you're simply getting this confused with the issue surrounding improvised weapons, where the word "proficiency" is never stated.
The word "proficiency" is clearly stated in the name "Martial Weapon Proficiency".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would also be nice to have MWP actually stated it gives proficiency. As is, it JUST removes penalties, much like Throw Anything, but it's assumed that one gives proficiency and the other doesn't... Many things in pathfinder could benefit from clearer and more consistent wording.
I hope you're simply getting this confused with the issue surrounding improvised weapons, where the word "proficiency" is never stated.
The word "proficiency" is clearly stated in the name "Martial Weapon Proficiency".
He's not mistaken. The phrasing of Martial Weapon Proficiency never states that you are proficient with the weapon you take the feat for, only that you "make attack rolls normally (without the non-proficient penalty)". It's one of those cases where the RaI is perfectly clear, but the rules phrasing doesn't actually back that up.
That said, I've yet to meet a GM who seriously argued that martial weapon proficiency doesn't grant proficiency. It's a good example of a problem that can be avoided with standardized phrasing though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would also be nice to have MWP actually stated it gives proficiency. As is, it JUST removes penalties, much like Throw Anything, but it's assumed that one gives proficiency and the other doesn't... Many things in pathfinder could benefit from clearer and more consistent wording.
I hope you're simply getting this confused with the issue surrounding improvised weapons, where the word "proficiency" is never stated.
The word "proficiency" is clearly stated in the name "Martial Weapon Proficiency".
It, however, is NEVER stated in the actual benefits of the feat. "Martial Weapon Proficiency" never says it grants proficiency, just that "You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normally (without the non-proficient penalty)." This is almost identical to Throw Anything's "You do not suffer any penalties for using an improvised ranged weapon." The implication of this seems to be that being able to wield a weapon without penalties is the definition of proficiency and Throw Anything does that. This is further bolstered by some Favored class bonuses that reduce non-proficient penalties and granting the proficiency feats when it drops to 0.
As to the name, those don't have to correlate to the feats rules. For example Vicious Stomp and Punishing Kick doesn't have to use a kick. Proficiency, however, is never defined directly and is only second handedly given form in the feat as 'normal use' or 'using without penalty'. Going by that standard, the line of improvised weapon feats and ability would qualify.
Kudaku: The main issue is that following that RAI leads to proficiency in improvised weapons and that is something people WILL seriously argue against. No penalty = proficiency in one place should mean no penalty = proficiency in any other, but it's commonly not seen that way.
That said, we're wandering away from the topic and these are points I've made before so I'll leave it at that.
If I were to re-design it, I'd say that MWP gave you your choice of proficiency with all martial weapons or proficiency with one martial weapon and +1 to attack with it.Something else to consider is that the martial weapon proficiency feat requires the weapon to be martial and yet you can still choose an exotic with the racial familiarity. So the precedent there would seem to suggest it works.
The confusing reality is that martial weapon proficiency is more of a trait level power than a feat level power. Of course, traits weren't part of core, so it's a feat. But if the game got a do-over, it would probably have been a trait.
Martial weapons are already too close to exotic in terms of damage to be handing out +1s, unless you would plan to do the same for Exotic Weapon Proficiency. If I had to redesign MWP and still keep it a feat, I would let it give you proficiency with all of the martial weapons in a fighter weapon group.
|
|
It, however, is NEVER stated in the actual benefits of the feat. "Martial Weapon Proficiency" never says it grants proficiency, just that "You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normallyIt would also be nice to have MWP actually stated it gives proficiency. As is, it JUST removes penalties, much like Throw Anything, but it's assumed that one gives proficiency and the other doesn't... Many things in pathfinder could benefit from clearer and more consistent wording.I hope you're simply getting this confused with the issue surrounding improvised weapons, where the word "proficiency" is never stated.
The word "proficiency" is clearly stated in the name "Martial Weapon Proficiency".
There's absolutely no reason why the text of the feat must specify that you now have proficiency.
If another ability requires you to have "Proficiency", congratulations, you have a feat called "Proficiency".
It's that simple.
|
|
It would also be nice to have MWP actually stated it gives proficiency. As is, it JUST removes penalties, much like Throw Anything, but it's assumed that one gives proficiency and the other doesn't... Many things in pathfinder could benefit from clearer and more consistent wording.
I hope you're simply getting this confused with the issue surrounding improvised weapons, where the word "proficiency" is never stated.
When RAW gets this bad, I begin to wish it was a tangible thing that I could take out into the parking lot and beat it into pieces with a baseball bat, sort of like those guys from Office Space with the printer.
Yes - those feats obviously confer proficiency. If they do not, then I'm ready to die now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It, however, is NEVER stated in the actual benefits of the feat. "Martial Weapon Proficiency" never says it grants proficiency, just that "You make attack rolls with the selected weapon normallyIt would also be nice to have MWP actually stated it gives proficiency. As is, it JUST removes penalties, much like Throw Anything, but it's assumed that one gives proficiency and the other doesn't... Many things in pathfinder could benefit from clearer and more consistent wording.I hope you're simply getting this confused with the issue surrounding improvised weapons, where the word "proficiency" is never stated.
The word "proficiency" is clearly stated in the name "Martial Weapon Proficiency".
There's absolutely no reason why the text of the feat must specify that you now have proficiency.
If another ability requires you to have "Proficiency", congratulations, you have a feat called "Proficiency".
It's that simple.
Feats shouldn't have to actually have the text to support what it does? Sorry, but I'll strongly disagree. It's extremely poor planning to have the rules element be in the name and absent from the benefit. It's even worse when you have other feats where the name doesn't match the feats requirements (Vicious Stomp/Punishing Kick). By your way of thinking, they'd have to only usable with kick attack. It's in the feat name right?
Hollister: Everyone knows what the intent was. They just 100% fell down on the implementation. By taking the round-about way instead of JUST saying you gain proficiency, you are left to infer that the lack of penalties = proficiency. It's shockingly bad design. It's an inherited issue from 3.5, so I understand where it comes from.
Deleted my previous post since Graystone said everything I said, better. :)
|
|
If we're going to gripe about poorly named things, then let's please take a swipe at the 'Exotic Weapon Training' alternate racial ability of Tengus.
This is because it should be named "Eastern Weapon Training". It's not all exotics, despite its name. Just 'eastern' weapons.
I got tricked by this one a while ago and it made me sad. :(
Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons: Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons possessed by their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls.It's a simple matter of Modes Tolens; Deny the consequent, and you deny the antecedent. If a character is not proficient, then he takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls. He does not take -4 on attack rolls. Ergo, he is not not proficient. Not not proficient = proficient.
So going with this Throw anything, rough and ready and Catch Off-Guard make me proficient in improvised weapons? I don't take -4 on attack rolls. Ergo, I'm not not proficient. Not not proficient = proficient. The same logic that makes me proficient in a weapon after taking a weapon proficiency feat does the same for these improvised weapon feats. I should then be free to then take weapon focus in an effected improvised weapon.
This is where my issue/controversy/reason comes in Hollister. One is accepted offhand and the other isn't even though the same logic applies. I fail to see the pedantry that Nefreet sees in my pointing this out.
Sure, the feat is poorly worded, but that's by our modern standards. When this feat was written, we didn't have the same high standards that we do now.
Sure, the feat is poorly worded, but that's by our modern standards. When this feat was written, we didn't have the same high standards that we do now.
3.5 wasn't written in the dark ages... Add to that prone shooter was written under those modern high standards... :P
Prone shooter is very well written. It wasn't well researched.
Prone shooter is very well written. It wasn't well researched.
And those are 'high standards'? Then tell me how a scorpion whip works while expounding the awesome writing... Do you want me to pull out the ACG, like how an archetype that says they "never soil their hands with powder or feel the sting of gun smoke" still gets proficiency in all guns, a free firearm and the Gunsmithing feat? Poor writing, editing and research aren't limited to 3.5.