New Trait Fate's Favored


Rules Questions

151 to 200 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:

4 of my 30 PFS characters have Fate's Favored:

Half-orc Inquisitor
Human Warpriest
Human Paladin
Tengu Rogue

3 of them wear a Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier (and the 4th will when he's higher level). The 3 divine casters all utilize Divine Favor. The Half-orc obviously has a Sacred Tattoo. That's all pretty understandable. +1 to attack, damage, AC and saves is incredibly powerful for a trait.

But when looking for a feat for my 15th level Rogue, that was when I realized Fate's Favored was probably too good. I chose Additional Traits just to grab Fate's Favored, and spent 20k on a Luckstone to combine with it. For a skill monkey, and a class with only one good saving throw, spending 20k and a feat was just too good of an opportunity to pass up.

At 15th level there should be better choices than half a feat. It effectively does the work of 5 traits (conservatively). Imagine:

A couple traits give +1 to AC (under certain conditions)
Some traits give you +1 to attack (under certain conditions)
Some traits give you +1 to damage (under certain conditions)
Several traits give you +1 to a single save. Some give you more
And most skill traits only grant +1 to maybe a couple skills

Yet, when combined with the magic items and/or spells that most characters eventually gravitate towards, Fate's Favored outdoes all five of those types of traits on its own.

I've decided to ban it from an AP I'm starting next month. I won't advocate for errata, because I'm clearly enjoying its effects, but claiming it's not out of balance is disingenuous. If it gets errata'd I wouldn't be surprised.

So what your saying is if we (PFS) just bans the Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, every thing is good. I agree its far, far too good for the price. :P

Its not at all disingenuous, you are just misrepresenting it greatly.

20,000 and a Trait for a +2 is the extreme, not the norm, but its also a pretty costly combo most can't afford. Especially in PFS.

Here is what the Trait actually does:
+1 to Luck Bonuses (under certain circumstances)

The same argument could be made for Havok of the Society. Wha. . .!!! it makes all damage spells deal +1 Damage. Not just Fire Spells, or Cold Spells. Everything that deals damage. And its Force Damage, so not reduced by Resistance and hits ghosts!!! Thats to good.

Sczarni

That is not comparable. And I think I represented it just fine.

Most traits give you +1 to one type of roll. Usually just to damage, or attacks, or saves, or skills. And rarely to your Armor Class.

Fate's Favored does all of that, and with less restrictions.

Shadow Lodge

Its extremely comparable. Fate's Favored does not grant a +2 (or more) to Attacks, Damage, AC, Saves, or Skills, it makes other things that do better at it, by +1. Thats it.

Even with a Stone of Good Luck which gives a +1 to Saves, Ability Checks, and Skill Checks, thats a pricy investment and you probably could do the same thing with cheap Ioun Stones, or close to it, but starting a lot earlier.

Its nice, but not a must have.

Its been around for a few years now (check the date of the first post, ha ha, this is not new). And everything everyone has been mentioning to combine with it predates the Trait. Well, minus the Warpriest, but thats a whole other can of worms. If the class relies on this Trait to almost keep up, thats not on the Trait.

But as we have both demonstrated, most of our character do not even have it. In fact none of mine do, I wanted something better in each case. 4 of your's do and also happen to have a certain problematic headslot item. Just saying, its not the Trait thats the issue there.

Sczarni

None of those characters would have that "problematic headslot item" without this trait.

The Jingasa is perfectly balanced. It's a slotted item that gives +1 AC and another minor benefit 1/day for 5000gp. There's an Ioun Stone that does exactly that, except its minor benefit is constant.

What makes the Jingasa desirable is Fate's Favored, not the other way around.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I saw Jingasa's on every character way before Fate's Favored showed up.

The crit negation is more important than the AC boost. So you've got that one backwards.

Sczarni

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I saw Jingasa's on every character way before Fate's Favored showed up.

And yet none of mine have them, unless they have Fate's Favored.

I'd say the rate of Jingasa use drastically increased when this trait was released.

Shadow Lodge

The Crit Negation 1/Day is worth the cost, and it doesn't hurt that it uses an Item Slot most but casters do not fill. The AC bump is just free cake on the side.

The Jingasa of the Fortunate Soldier, in my experience, is probably the most universal item I see in PFS, up there with Cloak of Protection or Amulet of Natural Armor. Its just too good and pretty cheap. Its also one of the number 1 must have items on the various purchase suggestions.

Sczarni

More of my characters have a Circlet of Persuasion than a Jingasa. +3 to social skills will get you farther than 1/day crit negation.

And you don't need crit negation if your AC gets high enough (or you can acquire a stable miss chance). And there are plenty of other ways to get crit negation.

Shocker: something listed as important in a guide is purchased widely! I can't buy into that sort of circular logic.

But this tangent is moot, and a red herring, since Fate's Favored increases virtually any and every check your character will ever make. If it was just limited to AC, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.


I also had the Jingasa on my to-buy list long before Fate's Favored came out. An AC boosting item that stacks with other AC boosters was always good, and negating a single crit can be a huge plus (especially if said crit comes from an x3 or x4 weapon).


It's a good item. With that trait it's amazing good. No one's arguing that. If that's all the trait did it would be good (in fact there's an AC boosting trait which would be equivalent ).

But it does more stacks more and keeps going. Hence overpowered.


Nefreet wrote:

That is not comparable. And I think I represented it just fine.

Most traits give you +1 to one type of roll. Usually just to damage, or attacks, or saves, or skills. And rarely to your Armor Class.

Fate's Favored does all of that, and with less restrictions.

So... you're saying most feats and traits are too weak?

Sczarni

-_-


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Secret Wizard wrote:
...

Your hard on for errata alone shows we will never agree on what good game design means. Pathfinder has a lot of problems, but enabling players to take advantage of Items/abilities with mileage is not one of them. The courageous nerf was egregious and there is no need to repeat that with Fate's Favored. I also think you have misplaced hope if you think Magical Lineage will be errata'd.

All static bonus feats are badly designed, and while you are glad to waste two feats on a +2 bonus to a save and rerolling 1 failed save per day when you are already playing a disadvantaged class who can't take the feats they need to keep up with monster combat math but to a lot of people it's a big problem with the system. Forcing some classes to be MAD for a saving throw is bad too, and so is having two saving throws a million times more important than the other.

Pathfinder is not perfect, and the last thing people need to focus on is "fixing" strong options instead of trying to improve the horrendous areas of the system. It sounds like Dirty Tactics Toolbox might be the first book in Pathfinder addressing combat maneuvers and combat maneuver feat chains head on. The first. Since 2009, when people pointed them out.


i'm all for traits actually modifying a character by giving him UNIQUE things, not replicated by feats or such:

getting X to Y for skills p.e. is neat. things like pragmatic activator and such that allows your character to utilize a skill he wants even if his cha/wis/int is crap

things like a reroll/day, cha to will vs specific things, getting class skills, -metamagic costs, +luck bonuses,

ALL the above make your character more unique.

stuff like +1 to will, or +2 to init, or +1 to x, are simply put, boring.

i'm in the camp that believes we need MORE traits like fate's favored, and not less.

now, it seems strong, because the list of traits that compete with it are like 10-20 or so from the 100s of traits that exist.

i mean:
getting breastplate without having armor proficiency (-acp trait+mithril)
-spell level for metamagic (x2)
uncanny dodge
+to luck bonuses
+2 rounds to morale bonuses
+cha to will vs some of the most brutal will saves
int for umd
wisdom instead of any1 str/dex skill
int for intimidate
+CL up to character level
+attack on aoo
reroll any1 FAILED saving throw/day (so you dont have to announce before hand)
havoc of society
etc
(and that's not even including campaign traits like finding haileen, trapfinding and etc)

there are PLENTY of stuff on equal ground as fate's favored, just not enough


Another things it works very well with is the spell Cleromancy (a great buff spell all by itself)....


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Arbane the Terrible wrote:

So... you're saying most feats and traits are too weak?

That is certainly the other option you could look at. Generally its easier to correct one thing, than fix all other things. But lets try that perspective.

We can fairly easily establish that fate's favored is worth a little more than a luckstone + dusty rose ioun stone. So about 25k in magic items.

Why not bring all traits up closer to 25k value?

All the traits that give static bonuses to saves, should be +5 to all saves based on cloak of resistance.

All the traits that give bonuses to AC, should be at least a +3 based on ring of protection.

Traits that give +2 to Init, should be more than a +4 based on Banner of Ancient Kings.

Traits that give bonus to hit or damage, should be at least a +2 to both, based on Gloves of Dueling.

Traits that give bonus to caster level, should probably a permanent +1 irregardless of HD, based on Orange Prism (Ioun Stone).

Shadow Lodge

But Fate's Favored ISN'T worth or equivalent to A Stone of Good Luck.

It's only comparable if you do indeed have a Stone of Good Luck.

Using that logic, you could say that Fate's Favored is worth a single casting of Divine Favor, which doesn't skew it's worth nearly as much. Or even a Wand of it.

Now if we take the Stone of Good Luck as one extreme polar end and we take a Wand of Divine Favor as the other (more realistic and practical) polar extreme, that puts it much more into perspective.

I also think that Pathfinders undefined "Ability Check" plays a strong roll here. The Stone of Good Luck itself grants a +1 on "saving throws, ability checks, and skill checks". It DOES NOT give anything for Attack Rolls, Damage Rolls, AC, etc. . .

Based on

PRD wrote:
Check: A check is a d20 roll which may or may not be modified by another value. The most common types are attack rolls, ability checks, skill checks, and saving throws.

LINK and Attack Roll (and a Damage Roll) is different than an Ability Check, though, to my knowledge, there is no define rule that states it other than this.

So, this Trait and a "Luckstone" grants you a total of a +2 on Skill Checks, Saves, and Ability checks. That's it.

So if we are going to rate the Trait based on having another Trait/Feat/Ability, a 20,000 Item + a 5,000* headslot + a 750 Wand.

Being that the Head slot Item's actual slot is the prime slot for a lot of character, that there is no way to "value" the lose of the Fate's Favored Trait, the Other Trait/Feat/Etc. . ., and that the Wand is at minimum cost, though, that doesn't mean much.

End Result though, a +2 Luck on Attacks and Damage for 1 minute, +2 Luck on AC, and a +2 Luck on Skills, Saves, and Ability Checks. With all this combined.

Just saying. by the point that all this starts coming online, that's not that great. And that's close to the best that this can do.


2 to all saves at level ...uh...before you pick a class... isn't exactly waiting for long for it to come on line.


Cavall wrote:
2 to all saves at level ...uh...before you pick a class... isn't exactly waiting for long for it to come on line.

The trait is only giving +1 to all saves because of a racial ability. And it was shown earlier that many races can do the same if they are willing to use their racial abilities and a trait.


Arbane the Terrible wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

That is not comparable. And I think I represented it just fine.

Most traits give you +1 to one type of roll. Usually just to damage, or attacks, or saves, or skills. And rarely to your Armor Class.

Fate's Favored does all of that, and with less restrictions.

So... you're saying most feats and traits are too weak?

Most feats and traits are too weak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think people are missing the point that traits should be extremely weak, as they are mostly flavor to represent your character background. +1 to a save is fine, a massive set of bonuses is not.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I saw Jingasa's on every character way before Fate's Favored showed up.

The crit negation is more important than the AC boost. So you've got that one backwards.

Actually you see it because it's a cheap way of raising AC.

A +1 Luck bonus is exactly the cost of raising a piece of magic armor from +2 to +3, with the fact it is touch AC and crit negation as extras.

With Fate's Favored, it's a TWO point raise for 5k gp, with touch AC and crit negation, which is the same as taking a shield to +1 and your armor to +2.

In other words, if you have +1 shield and armor, the Jingasa, with Fate's Favored, should be your very next buy for AC on the gold meter.

So, yes, the Jingasa SHOULD be very popular. Based on price, everyone should have one by level 7.

==Aelryinth


Secret Wizard wrote:
I think people are missing the point that traits should be extremely weak, as they are mostly flavor to represent your character background. +1 to a save is fine, a massive set of bonuses is not.

why?*

i find traits as a unique way to tweak your character.

as i mentioned before, there are over 10-20 traits that are straight up better than feats, fate's favored is one of them.

i would massivly buff/change the rest of the traits to fit into that category, then remove the "extra traits" feat, and call it a day myself.

this way traits retain their uniqueness, changing mechanics to fit your character, and are much more valuable since you can only have 2 in your entire career, whereass, you can easily have 2 feats just at lvl1 from being a human, or at lvl3 but being anything else.

*i see this as a very common misconception of flavor=/= powerful

you can have something that is easily both flavorful AND strong.
This concept brings me back into the starting steps of 3rd edition where the caveat was:
a new player will build a weak character because he doesn't know how to build a strong one
after a bit, he will build a munchkin character, utilizing everything he learned, and not care a bit about flavor
after a few campaigns, he will be tired of smashing everything into a pulp and he will create a character that is only flvor and fluff, often to the point of deliberatly nerfing himself "cause it's cool to do so"
.
.
lastly, after some more time, he will come to the realization and game knowledge, to build a competant, flavorful character, that he both enjoy and can stand it's own in a table.

we don't need to go "flavorful but weak" for traits, not when we can go to "strong and flavorful" from the get go.


Secret Wizard wrote:
I think people are missing the point that traits should be extremely weak, as they are mostly flavor to represent your character background. +1 to a save is fine, a massive set of bonuses is not.

When has this ever been the case? One of the first campaign traits gave DCs +1 for casters, and another gave you An additional favored class as well as the skill point and hit point for it.

Traits have never just been small benefits.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the whole "Fate's Favored is good (in specific scenarios), therefore it should be nerfed or removed entirely" is a little extreme. Fate's Favored can be better than a lot of traits, but only for specific characters or items. I've used it, but only on one or two characters who were built around it. There are a lot of traits that I use more often just because they're universally good. I can't really utilize Fate's Favored on every character, and even if I could, there are other things traits are good for that help flesh out characters in better ways.

Feats are the same way. There are definitely feats out there that are better than normal feats. Some are just really good, and work their way into my builds quite often. There are also hundreds of absolutely awful feats. That doesn't make me want to destroy the ones that are actually good.

People keep going back to this "traits are supposed to be half a feat," but I don't think that's a rule anywhere. It's barely even a guideline. You can look at traits like Reactionary or Deft Dodger and say, yes, that's equivalent to half a (specific) feat. But traits like Firebug are just as good as a feat -- it's equivalent to Weapon Focus if you're an alchemist. Actually it's better, because it works for all thrown splash weapons AND bombs. Armor Expert is something you can't even get with a feat. If you look at Muscle of the Society, that's again something you can't get with a feat, and it's better than a masterwork backpack at helping you carry things. Any of the "gain skill as class skill" traits are basically a +4 bonus, and many of those buff more than one skill. Extremely Fashionable is +1 to three different skills and makes one a class skill (another +3). That's comparable to full strength Skill Focus, with a little bit more spread, and no level restriction. I know I consider taking that trait every time I make a social character -- does that mean it needs to be removed?

And really, "half a feat" is meaningless when feats are all over the place. Some feats are like "If you have this, your character is amazing." Others are like "Well uh, once a day any time there's a full moon and your HP is exactly 0, you can get a +1 to perform (dance) checks." Yeah, Fate's Favored is better than some feats. But Hunter's Knack is better than "some feats," and it's one of the worst and most situational traits I know of.

There are other traits I flock to at every opportunity. Instead of trying to remove the ones that are actually good, maybe make less of them that are terrible?

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Please don't kill one of my favorite traits.

Heed these words of wisdom:

Let it be.


I don't think anyone is arguing that Fate's Favored is strong, but Magical Knack and Magical Lineage have the potential to be WAY more impactful, and I don't see anyone calling for their removal.

Sczarni

Magical Knack was actually just added back as a legal option in PFS.

For years, it was banned.

It's been shown to not be as overpowering as people claim.


I guess that shows what I know.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:

Magical Knack was actually just added back as a legal option in PFS.

For years, it was banned.

It's been shown to not be as overpowering as people claim.

I'm very curious to know the specific claims each side was making.


How can Magical Knack of all things be OP? Anyone who needs it made a mistake in the first place.*

*A very limited number of exceptions aside.

Sczarni

Ravingdork wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

Magical Knack was actually just added back as a legal option in PFS.

For years, it was banned.

It's been shown to not be as overpowering as people claim.

I'm very curious to know the specific claims each side was making.

THIS is the 375 post thread where each side presented their case, and where Mike Brock reversed the ban.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:


THIS is the 375 post thread where each side presented their case, and where Mike Brock reversed the ban.

Did you actually read that thread. Michael Brock specifically asked for only arguments leading to its unbanning. Only about 50 posts occur between his request, and his conclusion of unbanning it. Most of those posts are about snowball. Virtually no one argues for Magical Knack being overpowered in that thread.

You're going to be hard pressed to find arguments for banning magical knack, because it was banned at the same time traits were added to pathfinder society.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

The orc racial trait needs to be errata'd to a racial bonus as well.

The UC trait is fine as is since it isn't always active (which will be especially true after the above errata). :P

It double the power of stone of good luck, and that is a constant item.

A trait that make a 20K item work as a 80K item. Nice.
Depending on what other abilities you can use at low level it can be a very god trait to take.


Honestly if they just made the orc one racial, not luck I'd be ok.

It's still 1 to all saves, and really worth considering

Sczarni

Maezer wrote:
Nefreet wrote:


THIS is the 375 post thread where each side presented their case, and where Mike Brock reversed the ban.

Did you actually read that thread. Michael Brock specifically asked for only arguments leading to its unbanning. Only about 50 posts occur between his request, and his conclusion of unbanning it. Most of those posts are about snowball. Virtually no one argues for Magical Knack being overpowered in that thread.

You're going to be hard pressed to find arguments for banning magical knack, because it was banned at the same time traits were added to pathfinder society.

Yes, I've read the thread. I've had to reference it multiple times in the past. Coincidentally I had just started PFS a few months prior, and was very active in the forums already. I didn't post in that thread because I had nothing to contribute.

As Mike Brock referenced in his first post, requests to unban Magical Knack were rather common up until that point. You can search for them yourself in the PFS forum.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If that thread met your definition of both sides presenting their case... well it looks really one-sided to me. I have little doubt I can find lots of requests to allow it. That's not side that the underrepresented side.


Some traits are better than others. Some feats are better than others. That's just the way it's going to be when you're playing a game with this many options.

Fate's Favor is certainly good, especially if you build and purchase around it. Is that a problem? Not really. Most of its benefits are defensive in nature, and honestly, there's not many options for that type of focus.

If we want to ban/errata based on usefulness and strength, then I recommend we start with, oh let's see, Power Attack. Pretty much every martial has it, therefore it's got to be too good, right? It's clearly much better than most other feats, especially when combined with certain gear such as two-handed weapons.

(btw, I'm not trying to pick on martials here, just making a point)


Once again:

There are 2 dozen traits that are straight up better than feats. There are traits that offer straight up class features. There are traits that do things that are simply impossible to be without them.

And then again there are traits that grant +1 to a single save.

Why nerf one of the good ones and not simply buff the rest?


shroudb wrote:

Once again:

There are 2 dozen traits that are straight up better than feats. There are traits that offer straight up class features. There are traits that do things that are simply impossible to be without them.

And then again there are traits that grant +1 to a single save.

Why nerf one of the good ones and not simply buff the rest?

Because that's the very definition of power creep, and is very bad for the game, and is what everybody is arguing against?

OT, Fate Favored is OP for a trait, would be powerfull as a Feat, and is a most easy problem to solve. Just ban the entire Ultimate Campaign since it has really nothing worthy to add to a game except power creep.
If you are one of those "every Paizo book allowed" then, well you are in for a rough ride regardless, so brace yourself.
If you are talking about PFS instead, eh just deal with it, with all the abominion that are legal for play there Fate Favored is the least of your worries.


Dekalinder wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Once again:

There are 2 dozen traits that are straight up better than feats. There are traits that offer straight up class features. There are traits that do things that are simply impossible to be without them.

And then again there are traits that grant +1 to a single save.

Why nerf one of the good ones and not simply buff the rest?

Because that's the very definition of power creep, and is very bad for the game, and is what everybody is arguing against?

OT, Fate Favored is OP for a trait, would be powerfull as a Feat, and is a most easy problem to solve. Just ban the entire Ultimate Campaign since it has really nothing worthy to add to a game except power creep.
If you are one of those "every Paizo book allowed" then, well you are in for a rough ride regardless, so brace yourself.
If you are talking about PFS instead, eh just deal with it, with all the abominion that are legal for play there Fate Favored is the least of your worries.

I disagree.

Powerful traits change the way a character works making them unique.
If we remove them then traits be come obsolete and actually lose flavor.

Once again, things like magical knack, wsyang spell hunter, intimidating intellect, pragmatic activator, armor expert, irrepressible, deadeye marksman, transmuter of korada, community minded wisdom in the flesh, second chance (forgot it's real name), defensive strategist, etc

Are all more powerful (for certain builds) compared to feats, class abilities, etc)

Should we remove ALL the above?

If the answer is no, then fates fortuned doesn't need to go


Let's stop this crap about traits being "for flavor". Traits actually hamper flavour since if you want to be a competent mage, you got to be born in Wayang, if you want to be a competent EK you gotta have some weird ancestor ecc. ecc. The moment something gives a mechanical bonus, is not anymore there "for flavour". You take it because of the bonus it gives. Besides, reskinning traits is extremely common.

Anyway, what you missed about my post was that I never said "it has to go". What I said is that writing it was a f@+~up, like many more others, but now that is printed you gotta learn to deal with it, because neither option of "nefing anything above the line" or "buffing anything below the line" are pratical, nor actually benefic to the game.

I never liked the Paizo "patching" approach, and much prefer the "hands-off" approach of 5 ed.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You do realize, that even in PFS, you can reflavor traits.

It's not overpowered, and I feel you are seriously blowing it out of proportion.

That's my feelings on it anyway.

Also, if you must drop other editions, and gloat how good they are, then my only response can be, go play it instead.


Dekalinder wrote:

Let's stop this crap about traits being "for flavor". Traits actually hamper flavour since if you want to be a competent mage, you got to be born in Wayang, if you want to be a competent EK you gotta have some weird ancestor ecc. ecc. The moment something gives a mechanical bonus, is not anymore there "for flavour". You take it because of the bonus it gives. Besides, reskinning traits is extremely common.

Anyway, what you missed about my post was that I never said "it has to go". What I said is that writing it was a f!@!up, like many more others, but now that is printed you gotta learn to deal with it, because neither option of "nefing anything above the line" or "buffing anything below the line" are pratical, nor actually benefic to the game.

I never liked the Paizo "patching" approach, and much prefer the "hands-off" approach of 5 ed.

I once again disagree about the flavor comment.

Picking a powerful option doesn't hinder or favor the flavor of a character anymore or less than a weaker mechanically counterpart would.

As always you could make a munchkin without flavor that only cares about the mechanics, or a snob that puts so much emphasis on flavor and 100% disregards mechanical benefits, or a balanced, flavorful, mechanically sound character.

P.e. I often make my fates fortune characters have a background where their fate saved them from something and that (eventually) caused them to start adventuring.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dekalinder wrote:
Just ban the entire Ultimate Campaign since it has really nothing worthy to add to a game except power creep.

Yep, clearly the penalties for playing a young character, the section on applying taxes to character wealth, and the character retirement section are nothing but power creep.

Either that or you have abandoned discussion in favor of hyperbole.

Grand Lodge

Also, you can have PCs that are both mechanically viable, and flavorful.

Hard to comprehend for some, but it is quite true.

In fact, making the numbers meet the flavor, should be something that people strive for.

You may flavor your "world's greatest swordsman" PC, who has a 8 in Str, Dex, and Con, but your numbers tell otherwise.


I am perfectly aware of how common reskinning traits is, I also wrote in my post, and hence why I argued that traits and flavor have nothing in common.
Enforcing traits flavor, however, only hampers character flavor instead of benefitting it, that is what I said.

Flavor and power being totally unrelated, that also I agree with, as anyone who bothered to follow my general posting history knows.

The fact that I like one particular policy of one other game company does not mean anything more than that.

Being OP, being bad for the game, or being in need of a rewrite/deletion are not interdependant and follow each one their own track.
I think Fate Favored check on the first, but not on the other two points. I personally don't allow it but we all play in differents way.

On the Ultimate Campaign, I think all the Player specific option are either crap or (some very few exception) incredibly powerfull. There is no "concept enabling" rule or mandatory feat in there there that I can think is healty for the game.
As a DM supplement however is quite nice. Young template is nice for building PNG, not really for PC (either all uses it, so is pretty moot, or no one would take it)

I don't feel like I should have to, but since BBT is here doing what he does best, lemme put a disclaimer that all that is written in here is my personal opinion and I don't pretend to tell you how you should play of what you should enjoy.


Dekalinder wrote:
Let's stop this crap about traits being "for flavor". Traits actually hamper flavour since if you want to be a competent mage, you got to be born in Wayang, if you want to be a competent EK you gotta have some weird ancestor ecc. ecc. The moment something gives a mechanical bonus, is not anymore there "for flavour". You take it because of the bonus it gives. Besides, reskinning traits is extremely common.

My last Arcanist character took Extremely Fashionable and Missing Child (GM okayed it) to get Bluff, Diplomacy, and Sense Motive into his class lists to fit the character's backstory and his talents (former slave of drows, brown-nosed his captors to get preferential treatment).

Traits are extremely good for changing around class skills. I fail to see why Wayang is needed for a competent mage. Wizards and Arcanists are still Tier 1 classes without a one-spell metamagic reduction.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

You do realize, that even in PFS, you can reflavor traits.

It's not overpowered, and I feel you are seriously blowing it out of proportion.

That's my feelings on it anyway.

Also, if you must drop other editions, and gloat how good they are, then my only response can be, go play it instead.

As an option to take? It's not overpowered. It's no more overpowered than using a +2 sword over a +1 sword. I don't think the problem is that the option, in itself, is overpowered.

It's the relative power level in comparison to the other options available. Instead of taking a +1 to all Will Saves, or a +2 to Saves V.S. Mind-Affecting Effects, which are the other most common trait selections, you can instead take a (potential) +1 to Attack, Damage, Skills, Ability Checks, and of course, all saves (not just Will Saves).

Any braindead person who knows how to math will tell you that the +1 to (effectively) everything will be better than the +1 to just one sub-thing of a thing. There's been marketing schemes that examplify just that.


Looking at traits more generally in comparison to feats, it just occurred to me that there are traits that do what feats try to and do it better in some instances. Case in point; Intimidating Prowess and Bruising Intellect. Perhaps some of this is an attempt to change the dynamic of options? Traits do provide a better option for something from a quirk of upbringing rather than a result of training which seems to be the main gist of feats. It would be interesting to see a designer chime in or write a blog post on how option philosophy has shifted since the CRB was published and new sub systems were added to the game.

151 to 200 of 212 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / New Trait Fate's Favored All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.