Pathfinder Adventure Path: Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide (PFRPG) PDF

Tying the traits to a particular path does give the impression players are being heavily to pic a path early and that's something I don't like. My main dislike of the original mythic playtest rules was how each path was tied to "any one ability score of your choice" so players would blatantly just pick the highest. Personally I'd have rather seen each path bound to a specific ability score (constitution for defender, wisdom for heirophant etc). While this would have been more railroady it would have avoided some really silly combinations.

So it would seem that this particular adventure path is suited to a planned progression rather than an organic one. In some AP's (Council of Thieves, Skull & Shackles, Carrion Crown etc) you can create a character and then go with the flow, leveling as you go. In some others (Crimson Throne, Reign of Winter etc) it's a good idea to have a level plan in place. It doesn't need to be painstakingly exact in every detail but to have a basic plan and stick to it.

I get the feeling that Wrath of the Righteous is intended for pre-planned builds rather than more open minded/reactive character development. If that's the case then it's a shame as I enjoy both methods but tend to prefer the latter.

ALSO: If there are 6 traits, and multiple players at your table pick the same trait that's actually great! Now you have two players who don't need to waste any table time getting to know each other because they were present for their short backstory.

As long as those characters do fit together. Some work without issues, others require you to be related (tricky if the two are a dwarf and a halfling) or to worship the same god.

I have used these a couple times in the past, but nothing so recent. As a result, I was confused by the lack of skill choice advice. The last one I really looked at was Skull and Shackle's, though. Are they not doing that anymore? I know the times I've used them, they've advised me to take skills I wouldn't have otherwise, and it's payed off big time, and I know my shackle's group would have been in a lot more trouble in the first adventure without it.

I do miss the class option, such as favored terrain, and skill choice advice. If it wasn't popular with most players, I can understand not bothering with it, but being a bit of an intimidated player, is there any advice for me and my team?

It was nice to see favoured enemy recommendations for rangers. There was a complete lack of favoured enemy advice for Shattered Star or Reign of Winter which left a few ranger players feeling the need to ask the gm so they wouldn't pick something that would never appear in the AP at all.

I get the feeling that Wrath of the Righteous is intended for pre-planned builds rather than more open minded/reactive character development. If that's the case then it's a shame as I enjoy both methods but tend to prefer the latter.

Interestingly, I kind of have a different take-away for it. It really seems to be a campaign more focused on military and ongoing battle. Where NPCs will be less important overall because they are likely to not survive. Sort of a mixture of a lot of wartime movies (with a nudge towards good aligned) and maybe Hellboy?

My question is, how much will it hinder the players if the campaign traits are simply eliminated? Or, how hard would it be to reflavour the campaign traits to work better with backstories?

The traits smell of side quests, I like it

My question is, how much will it hinder the players if the campaign traits are simply eliminated?

Not at all. After all, the adventure assumes at least two of them won't get used (because there are six traits and the AP assumes a 4 person party), so if you just skip 'em, you won't get the cool extra dimension for a few of the encounters, but that's it.

Or, how hard would it be to reflavour the campaign traits to work better with backstories?

Without the AP in hand, it's hard to say for sure, but frankly, I think it would be very, very easy to just boil them down to the essential elements and change all the surrounding fluff.

In_digo wrote:

My question is, how much will it hinder the players if the campaign traits are simply eliminated?

Not at all. After all, the adventure assumes at least two of them won't get used (because there are six traits and the AP assumes a 4 person party), so if you just skip 'em, you won't get the cool extra dimension for a few of the encounters, but that's it.

In_digo wrote:

Or, how hard would it be to reflavour the campaign traits to work better with backstories?

Without the AP in hand, it's hard to say for sure, but frankly, I think it would be very, very easy to just boil them down to the essential elements and change all the surrounding fluff.

I hope both of your predictions are right. I guess time will tell.

Here's some important quotes and thoughts from the guide to point out how silly some of the complaints are.

Alignment: ... Good-aligned characters make the most sense for this Adventure Path ... It‘s also a good idea, as in any campaign, to make your choice in a way that won’t be disruptive to the party. The disruption caused by bringing different alignments into the party will vary from group to group, so the best way to make sure that your choice works is to talk with your group about what you’re planning."

Redemption: ... Redemption might also be a personal mission for your character. Perhaps your character decided to fight for the crusades as a way to purge a tainted past.

Who says a character has to know they're on the path to redemption? Go ahead and play your CN rogue, your LE cleric of Asmodeus (see Alignment above,t hough). They can slowly move up to put a G in there as story progresses.

Campaign Traits:
- Some of you are not being creative enough in how multiple characters can tie into the same trait. So what if a dwarf and gnome and both children of the crusade. Maybe they ARE distant relatives, one (or both) of them being an adopted child?
- As somebody already pointed out, this is simply a single element of a characters backstory. If an entire character becomes defined by this trait (and thus single element), then that is on the roleplaying strength/weakness of the player - and something that can always be improved upon.
- The traits are quite obviously designed to have your character integrate WELL into the AP. As a GM, I often have players who fit into the initial scenario (they'll be in Sandpoint right as goblins attack) and maybe a bit further in... But then as the campaign progresses on, their character starts to fit in less and less, eventually leading to a death where the character would have no reason to come back. And WotR feels like a campaign where it would be very difficult to introduce a new PC mid campaign. "Hey party guess what, all those legendary things you did to earn your mythic? Yeah this random guy over here did some stuff like that too. He's your new buddy."
- If any of you are starting this AP in the next few days, then maybe some of the complaints about "but I don't know what the mythic paths will do for a character" are valid. But mythic rules launch next week. Not to mention of course that the basic principles behind them have been available in playtest form for ages. You should already know (and be getting a much better sense of, soon) what each of the paths do. Some paths are pretty specific to what characters will benefit from them (looking at you Hierophant and Archmage), but others like Guardian and Marshal are a bit more open to who will benefit.
- Furthermore, the traits force thought over mechanical benefits. "My character could be more apt to survive if I take this option, but it doesn't gel with what I wanted my background to be" - if you don't want your character to be more durable, then Guardian isn't the path for you. Take a trait that actually fits with your background.

Skills:
- If your campaign will be using Ultimate Campaigns downtime system, then skills really are your call on what to pick.
- Profession (Soldier) is called out under mass combat

Non-good characters:
- The entire theme behind the AP is "heroes". That word is thrown around everywhere in this guide. What motivation does the CN rogue, or the cleric of asmodeus, have to become a hero? Specifically why does he want to become a hero through his actions contributing to the crusade? I'd have to suspend MY disbelief of one of those, unless it was played particularly well. Just as somebody would need to play a paladin extremely well to have them survive Skulls and Shackles (which they are called out on not being good for, exactly the same situation)
- If Paizo tried to write out suggestions to fit in every corner case (Cleric of Asomdeus, non-good Neutral Kellid Druid of the Green Faith, Hellknights, etc) then this would have taken much more time to write out
- Check Demon Hunters Handbook before you drop ALL your complaints.. If you remember "People of the North", it's tie in to RoW was wonderful. So many character options and a few "corner case" ideas as well. Paid product vs free product.
- If you can't convince your characters to play nicely together, then tell the disruptive player they need to change. In this case.. Paladins > Cleric of Asmodeus, simply due to the nature of the AP.

If you eliminate the dependency on taking certain traits for certain mythic paths (i.e. you get the mythic upgrade later on no matter which path you have taken), then they become much more bearable. Although I still dislike the "if you take this trait and another person takes it, you must have experienced it together!" requirement, which I will probably also waive. I don't want to restrict my players imagination too much when creating their backstory.

Um, yeah. Not going to even try to refute dunebugg, because that would take an hour alone to weed all out the fallacies and I can already see from the posting style that it would just result in nothing but in a "agree to disagree". At best. But not bad, making a post where I want to facepalm for every single point made.

Ah, the joys of discussing anything with magnuskn.

The relatives one might be able to be worked around. Depending on what's going to be done with it, which we don't know yet. If it winds up being actual bloodline that matters, then it's a bit harder to have the adopted gnome fit in.

And the "must worship the same god" one is more of a problem and harder to work around.

Well the one thing we seem to have established is that this is the player's guide that people want to argue about. There's been a lot of discussion, some of it more heated than other. Very mixed reviews. Clearly people have very strong feelings on this one. Would it be foolish to liken it to Marmite? You know, the whole "either you love it or you hate it" thing?

Can't stand marmite myself.

I'll still be interested to see how possible it will be to remove the Mythic rules from the adventure path for the player characters because I don't like the mythic rules. I like the idea of the Wrath of the Righteous adventure path, the player's guide has got me excited (although disliking how heavy handed and linear the mechanical aspects of the traits are implemented). So I'm willing to put up with the Mythic rules for the sake of this AP if it's a really good adventure.

That being said, I originaly envisaged it as being a good adventure path. Once I realised it was all going to be OTT demon bashing action in the Worldwound (and realised it might bear some strong resemblance to the Diablo games) the Mythic rules somehow became more acceptable because I then knew what sort of genre the AP was going to be. I had originaly imagined something more Arthurian, less action packed and less black and white.

It's all to do with knowing what you're getting into and if you're going to like it. I would have loved the AP I had imagined. Possibly even more so than the final product. But I have found ways to make what we're actually getting quite fun and exciting too so it's all about looking for the facets that might appeal.

And for people who know how pessimistic and grumpy this old dwarf is that's quite an impressive statement coming from me :).

And the "must worship the same god" one is more of a problem and harder to work around.

But, but, but what if we want to play a party comprised entirely of dwarfs and gnomes? Go short party! Torag demands the worldwound be cleansed :). If you can't neccessarily find a common deity then find a common cultural bond and see which god or goddess seems the most appropriate. There's different ways of approaching different problems.

thejeff wrote:

And the "must worship the same god" one is more of a problem and harder to work around.

But, but, but what if we want to play a party comprised entirely of dwarfs and gnomes? Go short party! Torag demands the worldwound be cleansed :). If you can't neccessarily find a common deity then find a common cultural bond and see which god or goddess seems the most appropriate. There's different ways of approaching different problems.

And usually groups who have players in similar roles will be amiable to creating that bond (same deity/empyreal lord).

But honestly, I dont understand why a party of 4-6 would WANT to double up on Mythic paths when they can all be their own unique snowflake.

thejeff wrote:

And the "must worship the same god" one is more of a problem and harder to work around.

But, but, but what if we want to play a party comprised entirely of dwarfs and gnomes? Go short party! Torag demands the worldwound be cleansed :). If you can't neccessarily find a common deity then find a common cultural bond and see which god or goddess seems the most appropriate. There's different ways of approaching different problems.

Because maybe two players want to play divine casters but don't want the same deity. For either roleplaying or mechanical reasons?

I'm not saying there won't be cases where it could work. I'm saying it's more limiting than I'd like.

Does everybody have really crappy GMs or what?

Seriously, since when did we forget that this is a game of our imaginations, and that we aren't to take everything published as a proclamation from the gods, as shackles on our stories? Aren't these all suggestions, and explicit ones at that?

Even so, my approach guiding my players to create PC backstories, will be to see if any of my players are already committed to a certain backstory that is incompatible with some of these trait backgrounds. If so, then I will change the trait backstories to fit them with their future Moments of Ascension.

Another thing I think is getting lost in these complaints is that the "Moments of Ascension" to become mythic characters are story-based, not XP-based, and so this AP has set up default ways for GMs to have these Ascensions. Because this is an AP of mythic heroes battling the Legions of Hell, it makes sense that, in the default scenario, the gods themselves have taken an interest in the characters' lives since childhood. Once we see Volume 1, the picture should become clearer of how these trait backstories can strengthen the players' experience with AP, and also how they could be changed.

Um, yeah. Unless I read the solicitations wrong, the "moment of ascension" could well be just "you get infused by some magic crystal bling-bling" and not tie at all into those traits, some of which seem to be related to later events in the AP, well after people have become mythic.

If this thread and these reviews are evidence of anything, it's that there is tremendous interest in this Adventure Path, heh.

Does everybody have really crappy GMs or what?

Seriously, since when did we forget that this is a game of our imaginations, and that we aren't to take everything published as a proclamation from the gods, as shackles on our stories? Aren't these all suggestions, and explicit ones at that?

Even so, my approach guiding my players to create PC backstories, will be to see if any of my players are already committed to a certain backstory that is incompatible with some of these trait backgrounds. If so, then I will change the trait backstories to fit them with their future Moments of Ascension.

That is not the point. The point is that the PG is not very good. And I rated the PG, not what a good or even decent GM would be able to do in spite of it. The guide consists of a lot of reprinted material, and the material that is actually new is troubling. First and foremost, it suggests that you need to design your backgrounds along the lines of a specific trait in order to pick up a mythic path. Secondly, the "Redemption rules" made me scratch my head when I first read them, and haven't gotten better since. The whole thing feels cobbled together hastily, almost as if produced as an afterthought.

The book(let) is not horrible, but it is extremely far from being good. Compare and contrast it to the excellent Kingmaker PG, or more recently to the Jade Regent PG. Both did a much better job introducing the player to the AP, and raising interest in that AP.

As it stands, this PG is a wasted marketing opportunity. After reading it, I feel less inclined to play Wrath of the Righteous, not more - which is about the worst possible outcome to what is essentially an advertisement for the path.

ciretose wrote:

How much did you pay for this players guide?

Hey, if you want to play this out, maybe you can persuade me and others to cancel our suscriptions, too. You are actively not helpful to this thread and Paizo's bottom line.

Hey, if you are quitting the AP because I'm asking you to calm down and realize that this is a "good" focused AP encouraging players to be good in the same way Serpents Skull specifically said Paladins and Good characters might have a rough go...maybe I'm right about you needing to calm down and be less hyperbolic.

Not every AP is written for every concept. Nor should they be. I would rather the writers be instructed to write something interesting rather than to make sure every snowflake doesn't melt...

YMMV.

My question is, how much will it hinder the players if the campaign traits are simply eliminated? Or, how hard would it be to reflavour the campaign traits to work better with backstories?

With me this pretty much sums up how I feel about the issue. If the backstory of the traits can be easily altered then it's no big deal.

I'm just would be concerned that when a latter book of the AP comes out that there might be some plot relevant issue that intricately involves the backstory of a trait, and it would force the GM to do some rejuggling mid stride because they allowed the fluff of the trait and it's background to be changed at the beginning to reasonably suit their player's character concepts.

I don't want to get to book four and have some important plot element tied to a player's trait's fluff from the players guide and be in a mess trying to figure out how to fix it to make everything work.

If the traits do involve something like that it's something that needs to be known from the vary beginning so that issue doesn't come up. I would still much prefer to be able to alter the traits background to suit the players' concepts for their character if they are within reason.

Which campaign trait is so restrictive that the single event described suddenly ruins several dozen concepts? I'd love to see it because I really don't.

Was there an outcry like this when the Carrion Crown Player's Guide came out in regards to traits? What about Curse of the Crimson Throne or Jade Regent? Rise of the Runelords?

Perhaps I'm not looking at the same guide as you guys - I see plenty of support for Neutral and even Evil characters.

Of course, they wpould have to attempt redemption to avoid too much interparty conflict.

I think the redemption system is interesting, and I am considering letting my players be Evil if they want to end up Good.

And no, I will not let everyone be an ex-antipaladin/rogue. There would have to be only one former baddie. Yaaaay plotline!

But honestly, I dont understand why a party of 4-6 would WANT to double up on Mythic paths when they can all be their own unique snowflake.

Wizard and Sorcerer may both want Archmage. Cleric and Oracle may both want Hierophant.

Was there an outcry like this when the Carrion Crown Player's Guide came out in regards to traits? What about Curse of the Crimson Throne or Jade Regent? Rise of the Runelords?

Thanks for bringing up "Throne." I just started playing in that, and all of the traits require the entire party to have a reason to kill one specific NPC. That's a heck of a lot more restrictive than the traits for "Wrath."

Wizard and Sorcerer may both want Archmage. Cleric and Oracle may both want Hierophant.

And they can all take those paths. Also: the traits *suggest* an associated path. No where does it say a PC with that trait *has* to take that path. They just compliment each other well.

My question is, how much will it hinder the players if the campaign traits are simply eliminated? Or, how hard would it be to reflavour the campaign traits to work better with backstories?

There ARE some points where the adventure gives out special awards to the PCs based on what traits they chose, and there are 6 quests tied to the six traits... but if you're not using the traits, it won't break the plot of the adventure path at all, nor will it "cut out" any content from the game. The biggest thing you the GM will need to do is to simply choose what rewards to give which PCs when that event happens.

If you eliminate the dependency on taking certain traits for certain mythic paths (i.e. you get the mythic upgrade later on no matter which path you have taken), then they become much more bearable. Although I still dislike the "if you take this trait and another person takes it, you must have experienced it together!" requirement, which I will probably also waive. I don't want to restrict my players imagination too much when creating their backstory.

You can do so with ease. You as the GM will need to make a SLIGHT adjustment to the way a few rewards are handed out to players at the end of the first adventure, but that's easy.

As for why we have the "You must have experienced it together" in there...

And in fact, the more flexible the GM is on these traits, and the more he/she is willing to adjust them to fit the PCs better AND to then adjust how they interact in the few parts of the AP that they do so as appropriate, the better.

EVERY campaign benefits when the GM takes the time to customize it to their game. Wrath of the Righteous is no different. And the fact that we're trying something of an experiment out with the traits by making them more intrinsic to character backgrounds does mean that GMs should NOT be afraid to change things as needed for their games.

Here, here, Mr.Jacobs. they are all customizable to the characters as long as later on the DM can alter the quests to fit the modifications.

One little thing I do have a hindrance with is the Touched by Divinity, not in terms of the scenario, but in terms of the reward. it assumes that the person who takes it has both the need for a holy symbol and the use of a domain. While this does work for Clerics, Druids, and Inquisitors, it does not work well however for Oracles as they don't use either a holy symbol/focus or domain. so in their case what alterations would you consider that can make the award of the trait useful to Oracles. the story of the trait can still work (just make the visitation case multiple in visitors and not one, or make it some force), but the gain of the trait does fall short of useful to an oracle.

this is assuming that paladins and rangers will not be taking this trait or mythic path.

Touched by Divinity doesn't really need an adjustment per se - it keys off the character's diety, not their class selection. A fighter can take it, choose a diety to worship, and get the ability. The holy symbol doesn't do them much good, though.

There's one player I've seen already planning to take the trait and sell the holy symbol to buy more starting gear. ;)

zergtitan, Touched by Divinity gives you a first-level domain power as a spell-like ability. While the holy symbol may not see much use if the PC's not a divine caster, it could still be handy to be able to use a spell-like ability once per day, no matter what class you are. It's actually better for non-clerics, since clerics are basically just getting an extra use of a power they already have.

Here, here, Mr.Jacobs. they are all customizable to the characters as long as later on the DM can alter the quests to fit the modifications.

One little thing I do have a hindrance with is the Touched by Divinity, not in terms of the scenario, but in terms of the reward. it assumes that the person who takes it has both the need for a holy symbol and the use of a domain. While this does work for Clerics, Druids, and Inquisitors, it does not work well however for Oracles as they don't use either a holy symbol/focus or domain. so in their case what alterations would you consider that can make the award of the trait useful to Oracles. the story of the trait can still work (just make the visitation case multiple in visitors and not one, or make it some force), but the gain of the trait does fall short of useful to an oracle.

this is assuming that paladins and rangers will not be taking this trait or mythic path.

What that trait assumes is that the character is religious. While the holy symbol certainly helps divine spellcasters by being a divine focus... it can STILL be a cool element of a character who doesn't cast divine spells. You can be a religious bard or wizard or fighter or barbarian.

As for the actual benefit it grants... that's something you get REGARDLESS of whether or not you have a domain. Even a fighter who takes this trait gains that power. The whole point there is that you're religious enough that your deity's granted you this bit of power over and above what you get from your class.

Touched by Divinity doesn't really need an adjustment per se - it keys off the character's diety, not their class selection. A fighter can take it, choose a diety to worship, and get the ability. The holy symbol doesn't do them much good, though.

Exactly. Although the holy symbol DOES give the character a fun free item to roleplay with.

There's one player I've seen already planning to take the trait and sell the holy symbol to buy more starting gear. ;)

zergtitan, Touched by Divinity gives you a first-level domain power as a spell-like ability. While the holy symbol may not see much use if the PC's not a divine caster, it could still be handy to be able to use a spell-like ability once per day, no matter what class you are. It's actually better for non-clerics, since clerics are basically just getting an extra use of a power they already have.

If I had a player do that, I'd tell them they shouldn't take that trait in the first place.

That's like rolling up a wizard, then selling your spellbook for more gear, knowing that you can build a replacement spellbook soon enough.

That player's missing the whole point of the trait, and that's kinda depressing, since that kind of player is the type I'd hoped traits would help encourage to roleplay characters a bit more.

Now I see. took a second look and realized my error. thanks for the feedback. :)

EVERY campaign benefits when the GM takes the time to customize it to their game. Wrath of the Righteous is no different. And the fact that we're trying something of an experiment out with the traits by making them more intrinsic to character backgrounds does mean that GMs should NOT be afraid to change things as needed for their games.

I wholeheartedly endorse this message.

GM adjustments help make a campaign the group's campaign rather than a campaign simply run for the group. :)

Alleran wrote:

Wizard and Sorcerer may both want Archmage. Cleric and Oracle may both want Hierophant.

And they can all take those paths. Also: the traits *suggest* an associated path. No where does it say a PC with that trait *has* to take that path. They just compliment each other well.

My reply was in response to the concept of why you might want to double up on Mythic paths when everybody could take a different one. The answer is that some paths are better suited to certain classes than others.

All these complaints about the Players' Guide are certainly giving new meaning to the name of this entire AP.

"Wrath of the Righteous" indeed.

I'm looking forward to this one, anyway. Especially when/how mass combat ties into things.

I haven’t been worried by the traits. Some observations:

1.The gods of good are coming off a four crusade losing streak, and the player’s guide really emphasises it. After four crusades of throwing Paladins at the problem, the answer is – more Paladins? Isn’t it time for them to start thinking outside the box? It’s the storyline element that I thought would have justified the inclusion of a wider variety of alignments and viewpoints in the AP.

2.At the moment I’m assuming that it’s an artefact that grants the players access to mythic tiers. But even if it is, I’d still probably like a storyline reason why the gods of good have sat by and let hundreds or thousands of people die without trying the mythic tiers option before now. I thought the player’s guide would have explained it.

3.The redemption section at the end of the player’s guide was a bit of a depressing way to end the guide. I catch up with my friends once a week to play Pathfinder and have fun. Struggling for redemption (or helping others to do so) by undergoing various indignities doesn’t sound like fun.

I got the impression that the redemption rules are more for NPC's the party meets in the AP, not mainly for the PC's themselves.

That being said, I'm not much of a fan of putting a methodical resolution mechanic on a mainly roleplaying related situation. It has way too much potential to devolve into another "stacking bonuses instead of RP" situation, like the relationship mechanics did for many people playing Jade Regent.

Joana wrote:

There's one player I've seen already planning to take the trait and sell the holy symbol to buy more starting gear. ;)

zergtitan, Touched by Divinity gives you a first-level domain power as a spell-like ability. While the holy symbol may not see much use if the PC's not a divine caster, it could still be handy to be able to use a spell-like ability once per day, no matter what class you are. It's actually better for non-clerics, since clerics are basically just getting an extra use of a power they already have.

If I had a player do that, I'd tell them they shouldn't take that trait in the first place.

That's like rolling up a wizard, then selling your spellbook for more gear, knowing that you can build a replacement spellbook soon enough.

That player's missing the whole point of the trait, and that's kinda depressing, since that kind of player is the type I'd hoped traits would help encourage to roleplay characters a bit more.

This could still be role played in a manner that gels with the redemption theme of the AP, disillusioned cleric pawns his holy symbol for gear, has mythical experience then quests to regain the favour of his God. :D

So the complaints about that traits are all on the borderlands between absurd and silly, as anyone with a halfway decent understanding of how Pathfinder and published content work in Pathfinder should view the traits as what they are - suggestions and guidelines on cool ways to develop you character's background and personality in a way that will tie in to the AP.

However, because of the fact that some people are thinking that the traits are limiting and inflexible, perhaps the next player guide should include a sidebar explaining very clearly that the traits are suggestions, that they might or might not even be used,that if they are used they can and should be customized and generally viewed as guidelines rather than borders.

That people are incapable of grasping that concept in the first place is baffling to me, but maybe an extra clarification is needed. It would have certainly helped this book.

Yeah, well, aside from the fact that trying to ridicule people who criticise is not cool (especially when the actual spokepeople can handle complaints in a mature manner... perhaps you should take their example, LS), prior traits in prior player's guides have not elicited these kinds of complaints. Maybe one should take a look why that is.

But, hey, keep mocking. You are actively not helping the discussion.

Yeah, well, aside from the fact that trying to ridicule people who criticise is not cool (especially when the actual spokepeople can handle complaints in a mature manner... perhaps you should take their example, LS), prior traits in prior player's guides have not elicited these kinds of complaints. Maybe one should take a look why that is.

But, hey, keep mocking. You are actively not helping the discussion.

Well, the purpose of my post was to suggest a way to avoid the need of such a discussion the next time a player's guide comes out - thus, aimed more as an idea for the Paizo stuff than as part of the discussion with those complaining.

As for those complaining, looking at some of the things they say (such as that guy from the product reviews who said that essentially the only way to play the AP is with choosing one of 6 pregenerated characters, because of how things are presented in the player's guide), the way they play Pathfinder is different enough from mine that there's not much of a point in trying to discuss the issue.

I will admit that my reaction was a bit strong. I WAS frankly amazed that anyone can think that if a background is not in the player's guide, then it's not possible for a character. I WAS amazed that people thought that shifting and moving around the ties between each mythic path and each background is not possible. But still, I suppose I could have used softer words for getting my massage across.
The only response I had was to think that maybe the issue should have been addressed in more detail in the player's guide. It should be learned from cases like this that whenever there's even a slight change in the way certain rules elements work (like traits in the player's guide), people are going to react forcibly to some things. Predicting what those things are going to be can of course be hard, but I do believe that most of the issue can be solved by explaining in detail the basic assumptions made regarding the change. I'm pretty sure a single line of text in the player's guide, "Of course, there traits are only suggestions, any player may pick any trait or no trait at all, and later chose any mythic tier that he or she would want" would have solved the entire problem.

So to those whom I might have offended - apologies. That was not my intent, and I just let my civil ways slip for a moment because of my firm resistance to the type of game philosophy reflected by the criticism on the player's guide.

Well, I see that differently. Traits are a definite and by now firmly established way of making a connection between players and the AP they are upon to embark.

Ideally, they should provide that connection without impinging too much on the freedom of character background generation and in my opinion, these traits fall way too heavy on the side of railroading characters into being from Mendev. Which normally would not be a problem (Jade Regent strongly suggests you come from Sandpoint, for example), but an important focus of the story of the Mendevian Crusade is that they have people from all over the world join them and that they do accept even less-than-perfect applicants, because they need the sheer manpower to fight the demon hordes.

And the mechanical problem with trying to fix your mythic path with one of the campaign traits is simply that you can't expect all players to even know what mythic path they are going to take at the beginning of their characters career. It can be made to work by decoupling the mythic paths from the traits, but I personally think it shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

And I still am surprised that the prevalent notion apparently is that you can just ignore the campaign traits. That's certainly different than I have GM'ed it for my group during the last five years.

And I still am surprised that the prevalent notion apparently is that you can just ignore the campaign traits. That's certainly different than I have GM'ed it for my group during the last five years.

The prevalent notion is that you can ignore any rule in Pathfinder when and if it becomes disruptive to the game. That has always been true and is even written in the core rule book, if such things are important to you.

Plus, any kind of a healthy, trusting GM-players relationship would lead to a place where if a player is saying, "Iv'e looked at all the traits, but I just don't see any concept that I find interesting enough to play for the next year during an entire campaign, I want to do my own thing. You, the GM, are welcome to help me create a trait & background that will be related to the campaign, and that will give a mechanical advantage on par with the rest of the traits", then the GM will happily say yes and join his player in a creative process. Seriously, why WOULD you forbid your players from taking more control of their character creation, as long as it doesn't hurt the campaign?

The traits in the player's guide are *suggestions*. Those in this player's guide actually do a great job of incorporating story elements from the AP into them, to make those story elements have more of an impact when they become relevant. Because of that, they kind of have to be local - you can't really anticipate where a crusader might come from, so it's hard to really understand how his/her background could be tied to the AP. Again I feel that if the player's guide would have included a remark letting people know that the GM can use the knowledge he/she will have with the plot to craft new traits, specific to the wants of his/her players, the problem would be solved.

So I actually really like the traits. They do something which GMs would have probably struggled to accomplish by themselves. They create very strong tie-ins to several specific quests that will come up later in the campaigns. What the player guide can't do - which is to provide a trait for every possible point of origin and reason for wanting to fight demons that every possible "crusader" type of character concept would need - it leaves for the GMs to do on their own.

And as for this concern :

And the mechanical problem with trying to fix your mythic path with one of the campaign traits is simply that you can't expect all players to even know what mythic path they are going to take at the beginning of their characters career. It can be made to work by decoupling the mythic paths from the traits, but I personally think it shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

I agree that this is a relatively week and needless addition to how traits work, but it's really easy to ignore/fix, and also, from my experience most players plan their character builds waaaayyyy in advance, up to very high levels. Given that players KNOW that they are going to be mythic in this campaign, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't figure out in advance which path they'd like to chose. Again in some cases this is problematic, so I agree that this should have probably been skipped.

Fair enough on those points. But I'll say once again that I know really a lot of players who explicitly don't plan their characters out, but want their leveling to be organic to the characters they are actually playing during the campaign. I myself fall into the other camp who loves to plan out most of their career and play with different builds, but the "naturalistic" style of character advancement exists and they have a point as well in how they like to play it.