Let's Be Clear

ThaX, again, you have to forget everything about these "basic Trait qualifiers". You are the only one focusing on that language, and it's listed nowhere outside of the Traits Web Enhancement.

Ultimate Campaign did not change anything.

ThaX was not crazy. The APG lists five types of traits: Basic, Campaign, Race, Regional, and Religion.

Basic Traits: There are a total of 40 basic traits, which are split evenly among the categories of Combat, Faith,

Magic, and Social. Note that each of these four categories roughly equates to the four modes of adventuring, but aren’t tied to specific classes. It’s perfectly possible to have a religious rogue, for example, or a magic-obsessed fighter. Basic traits are “generic,” and should be able to fit into any campaign setting with a minimum of customization.

The four catagories of basic traits each count as their own list for the purpose of selecting traits.

And, again, outside of that document, tell me how that matters with regards to anything.

It doesn't. It's redundant language that has no effect or relation with any other rules elements.

The only thing that matters is the 13 different categories.

And, again, outside of that document, tell me how that matters with regards to anything.

It doesn't. It's redundant language that has no effect or relation with any other rules elements.

The only thing that matters is the 13 different categories.

+1

And, again, outside of that document, tell me how that matters with regards to anything.

It doesn't. It's redundant language that has no effect or relation with any other rules elements.

The only thing that matters is the 13 different categories.

It matters in the context of what was left out for the Race Traits in Ultimate Campaign, which was the secondary "Basic" trait addition from Gnomes of Goloran.

That I can take Etymoligist with Adopted is the main jist of this, as I had been told I could not in the past by (I believe) Mike Brock at Gen Con. My believe was that Ultimate Campaign removed that restriction. (Gnome traits having the Combat/Faith/Magic/Social additional restriction)

I realize now that it was also left out of the APG, which was likely produce after that Companion book as well.

It is a little niggle that I have always scratched my head over for some time.

Re writing the no pvp chapter of the book. I see a disconcerting number of individuals that see no problem with leaving you at -9 hp, blind, bleeding, and covered in BBQ sauce at the feet of the monster because, hey, I didn't kill you.

Re writing the no pvp chapter of the book. I see a disconcerting number of individuals that see no problem with leaving you at -9 hp, blind, bleeding, and covered in BBQ sauce at the feet of the monster because, hey, I didn't kill you.

I know a guy that would purposely pull fights together and then run away in an attempt to get other players killed.

On the other hand, I've played at least 3 or 4 tables where PCs got enchanted and started actually trying to kill each other. Being dominated by a succubus is what inspired my barbarian to upgrade his Cloak of Resistance, buy a headband for wisdom, and take Iron Will. Nobody batted an eye - all perfectly legal, and fun for all involved. Luckily, nobody died (except the succubi).

Yeah, my experiences with dominate person/monster have all been positive from the player reaction standpoint. My Ninja almost killed the Sorcerer after being dominated. My instructions for the Sorcerer were to kill her if he had to in order to stay alive. He dropped a Black Tentacles on her then went invisible. Both characters survived.

More recently, I was in a group where the Barbarian got dominated (he hadn't raged yet). He one round killed the unfortunate Rogue that was standing next to him. Thankfully my Cleric was on hand to Breath of Life and throw a Protection from Evil on the Barbarian before he took anyone else out.

The point being, all the players in both situations were fine, because they understood it was nobody's fault.

Nefreet wrote:

And, again, outside of that document, tell me how that matters with regards to anything.

It doesn't. It's redundant language that has no effect or relation with any other rules elements.

The only thing that matters is the 13 different categories.

+1

-2

The problem is that that text did, indeed, have an effect on at least one of the splatbooks, the Gnomes of Golarion book. In that specific book, because of the information that has been quoted in this thread, all the Race Traits were also given a secondary trait type from the four basic traits.

Now, if, as you stipulate, the "There are these four basic trait types." line is something that should be ignored as flash instead of splat, then it follows that the Race traits in the Gnomes book, and any others that also multi-typed any Race traits, should have the traits typed as "Basic" removed from them.

And that, as brought up multiple times in this thread, is what ThaX is requesting, a clarification as to whether, as you say, the Basic category is nothing in a rules meaning, in which case those categorizations should be pulled from the rest of the Gnome Race traits for consistency, or if the Basic category is something with actual rules meaning, and all Race traits should be typed as one of those four, if they are not already.

From what UndeadMitch quoted up thread, those Traits aren't Race Traits. They're [Social/Combat/Etc] Traits with the added requirement that only Gnomes can take them.

It also shouldn't be contended any more that they can't be taken with Adopted. The book specifically calls out that they can, regardless of what other categories they already are.

And, still, this categorization of "Basic" doesn't matter. Are they weird? Absolutely. But calling them "Basic" has -zero- impact on anything.

From what UndeadMitch quoted up thread, those Traits aren't Race Traits. They're [Social/Combat/Etc] Traits with the added requirement that only Gnomes can take them.

It also shouldn't be contended any more that they can't be taken with Adopted. The book specifically calls out that they can, regardless of what other categories they already are.

And, still, this categorization of "Basic" doesn't matter. Are they weird? Absolutely. But calling them "Basic" has -zero- impact on anything.

It does, as a psychological thing, which is why they are important. Whether they are rules important is not the issue, the issue is that they had an impact on the Gnomes of Golarion book, at a minimum. No matter how much you claim they are not important, their impact was important.

Now, as one of those traits was reprinted in Ultimate Campaign without the non-Race designator....

Gnomes of Golarion
Combat Traits
Rapscallion: You’ve spent your entire life thumbing your nose at the establishment, and you take pride in your run-ins with the law. Somehow, despite all the mischievous behavior in your life, you’ve never been caught—you always manage to stay one step ahead of your pursuers. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Escape Artist checks and a +1 trait bonus on Initiative checks.

Ultimate Campaign
Gnome Race Traits
Rapscallion: You’ve spent your entire life thumbing your nose at the establishment and take pride in your run-ins with the law. Somehow, despite all your mischievous behavior, you’ve never been caught. You gain a +1 trait bonus on Escape Artist checks and a +1 trait bonus on initiative checks.

Some change to the fluff, but the essentials are identical, other than one being a Combat trait, and the other not.

So, the question is, should they all be made into just Gnome Race Traits, just some of them, or should they just be made non-Race traits in the non-Race (Basic) category that they were put into in the Gnomes book?

I think this is the... 4th? time now that I've said this: Ultimate Campaign didn't change anything. The Combat Trait named "Rapscallion" and the Race Trait named "Rapscallion" exist independently of one another. They could even both be taken by the same character (although to no effect). This isn't the first time something like this has happened.

Sometimes, when material gets reprinted and changed (like the Whimsy Domain), the Additional Resources document will be amended to clarify that the newer version replaces the older one, and that the former is no longer legal.

That didn't happen with these Traits. Just like the "Helpful" Combat Trait and the "Helpful" Race Trait, we are allowed to pick from either. That's actually a good thing, and I'd bet there'd be at least one person negatively impacted if they were forced to go with the "newer version".

So are you a member of the peoples front of judea or the judean peoples front?

Sounds Druish...

I think this is the... 4th? time now that I've said this: Ultimate Campaign didn't change anything. The Combat Trait named "Rapscallion" and the Race Trait named "Rapscallion" exist independently of one another. They could even both be taken by the same character (although to no effect). This isn't the first time something like this has happened.

Sometimes, when material gets reprinted and changed (like the Whimsy Domain), the Additional Resources document will be amended to clarify that the newer version replaces the older one, and that the former is no longer legal.

That didn't happen with these Traits. Just like the "Helpful" Combat Trait and the "Helpful" Race Trait, we are allowed to pick from either. That's actually a good thing, and I'd bet there'd be at least one person negatively impacted if they were forced to go with the "newer version".

I'm sorry, how would it negatively impact someone? Rapscallion fills the Race trait slot, either way, so, no, you cannot take "both" as if there were two separate traits.

All the update does is remove Rapscallion from also filling the Combat trait slot.

Although the traits presented below are broken into several different categories, all are considered gnome racial traits.

Correcting language (Racial to Race) means that, either way, Rapscallion is a Gnome Race Trait.

I addressed that up thread. We're using our framework of understanding to assume that "Racial Traits" was used incorrectly, and that it should have instead stated "Race Traits". But it's also possible (which I believe now to be the case) that the author is simply describing that these Traits are only selectable by Gnomes.

So, no, I disagree that they are Race Traits.

Hopefully that helps explain why I'm furthermore against using the redundant category of "Basic Traits".

So, assuming that someone, somewhere, had chosen, say, the Combat Trait Rapscallion, which mentions nowhere that it's a Race Trait, and an actual Gnome Race Trait as their second Trait, they would be negatively impacted by being forced to update to the newer version.

Just as a Halfling with the Helpful Race Trait and a separate Combat Trait being forced to update to the Combat version of Helpful.

They are Race Traits, whether from the Gnome book, APG, or UC.

The difference was, the earlier companion book put those Race Traits into sub-categories, one of the four basic traits. This is why I believe a clarification is needed, as Adopted should be able to take race traits that are geared toward the social aspect of the gnome. (it makes the most sense)

The Trait that is reprinted (I had believed there had been more than one) is the same, with some added context and a sub-category added on in the earlier book. Nothing is lost or gained by taking one version over the other unless one wants to take another Combat Trait.

This gets more confusing when I have been told before that I could not take Race Traits that are Social because Adopted already is a Social trait. (Meaning I would be limited to those that are one of the other three basic categories)

It needs to be clarified if 1)Ultimate Campaign removes these sub-categories or 2) Adopted can take any race trait no matter if that trait has a Social sub-category or not. (Adopted would be the Place Holder, as I had contended before having to change Krawford)

I have been told before that I could not take Race Traits that are Social because Adopted already is a Social trait.

That is the general rule, however Gnomes of Golarion has texted that specifically overrides that.

Like myself, who does not own the book, many others were/are probably operating off the general rules.

I addressed that up thread. We're using our framework of understanding to assume that "Racial Traits" was used incorrectly, and that it should have instead stated "Race Traits". But it's also possible (which I believe now to be the case) that the author is simply describing that these Traits are only selectable by Gnomes.

So, no, I disagree that they are Race Traits.

Hopefully that helps explain why I'm furthermore against using the redundant category of "Basic Traits".

Not really. The problem is that that over-category is in the rules, and sometimes has an effect on things. Whether it should just be scotched, and both the APG and Web Traits language improved, is another subject.

Then again, maybe the simplest solution is to remove Social from Adopted, and make it an untyped trait.

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

I have been told before that I could not take Race Traits that are Social because Adopted already is a Social trait.

That is the general rule, however Gnomes of Golarion has texted that specifically overrides that.

Like myself, who does not own the book, many others were/are probably operating off the general rules.

Disagree. It's been long understood that traits from the gnome book were both race and another type.

The language in the gnome book actually supports this rather than refutes.

Doesn't matter how many types people believe they are.

You are explicitly permitted to take any of them with Adopted.

Generally, this would not be the case. Specifically in this case, you can.

How about this, the traits in Gnomes are both Race and whatever other type they are classified as. For example the Etymologist trait in Gnomes is both a race trait and a social trait. However, per the section on traits from that book that I quoted upthread, this does not stop the social traits from Gnomes from being selected with Adopted. Does that seem like something reasonable that we can all agree on?

I can agree that Adopted could be used to get a Gnome Race Trait that is Social, as indicated in the Gnomes of Golaron book.

That I had to change Krawford because of the mis-understanding is disheartening. My current character (Ding Daungh) does have this combination.

Doesn't matter how many types people believe they are.

You are explicitly permitted to take any of them with Adopted.

Generally, this would not be the case. Specifically in this case, you can.

No, actually, by at least one reading of that section, it does not bypass the inability to take a Social Gnome trait with Adopted, a Social trait.

Character traits represent quirks in a character’s background, things that have significantly affected her development as a person. Each character typically chooses two character traits during character creation. Although the traits presented below are broken into several different categories, all are considered gnome racial traits. Only gnome characters may take these traits, as they represent gnome-specific reactions to various stimuli and backgrounds. A dwarf or human may have gone through the same events, but their reactions to those events (and thus their traits) differ accordingly. (Of course, a character of a different race could still select a gnome racial trait if she has the Adopted trait presented in the Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement.)

I don't see that language as negating the "cannot take two traits form the same category" rule. It is, mainly, a reminder for how Adopted works, allowing you to take a Race trait form another race. Would you allow that language to allow a PC to take a Combat trait, and, using Adopted, take a Gnome Race Combat trait?

I would allow a character to use Adopted to take any of those "gnome racial traits", because that's what the section states as something you can do.

I would not read that parenthetical aside as overriding the restriction on choosing two traits of the same type; I read it as simply pointing out that taking "Adopted" would still override the requirement that a character has to be a gnome in order to take those traits, just as it does for other races.

As such, a character may be able to take one or more gnome racial traits without being a gnome, but they would still have to meet any other prerequisites for taking a trait (such as the limitation on only being able to choose one trait from any category). And, as kinevon has pointed out, this would mean they would not be able to take any other social trait, irrespective of whether or not that trait was restricted to gnomes.

Sounds like there is a lot of table variation on this. That makes it a good candidate for clarification.

+1

I thought the point of this thread was to point out clarifications that have already been made, or those that need to be made, not to argue about what they should be.

It's a difficult goal to achieve when one or more groups think something doesn't need clarification, especially when two or more opposing groups each believe their interpretation doesn't need clarification.

If one group thinks something needs clarification and the other does not, doesn't that imply that it needs clarification?

I thought the point of this thread was to point out clarifications that have already been made, or those that need to be made, not to argue about what they should be.

Yes, but if we fill the thread with hundreds of posts debating obscure minutiae then we can assure that no one ever reads it and no more actual clarifications ever get made.

Whew. We certainly dodged a bullet there!

That's why I created THIS thread, so we could compile everything in one place.

I would not read that parenthetical aside as overriding the restriction on choosing two traits of the same type; I read it as simply pointing out that taking "Adopted" would still override the requirement that a character has to be a gnome in order to take those traits, just as it does for other races.

As such, a character may be able to take one or more gnome racial traits without being a gnome, but they would still have to meet any other prerequisites for taking a trait (such as the limitation on only being able to choose one trait from any category). And, as kinevon has pointed out, this would mean they would not be able to take any other social trait, irrespective of whether or not that trait was restricted to gnomes.

Even when the Adopted trait is specifically mentioned as being able to take said traits? To me, the confusion is why the basic trait categories was even used in this way when the traits was already a Race Trait.

My excitement of the Race Traits that didn't have them in Ultimate Campaign was to the sky, but the fact that only one trait with those categories previously was reprinted (Rapscilian), this even seems to be lacking for the other traits, especially those of the Social basic trait category.

I am in agreement, it needs clarification, and pointed out that those social traits can be taken with Adopted, which I consider a place holder for the third trait it allows.

John Francis wrote:

I would not read that parenthetical aside as overriding the restriction on choosing two traits of the same type; I read it as simply pointing out that taking "Adopted" would still override the requirement that a character has to be a gnome in order to take those traits, just as it does for other races.

As such, a character may be able to take one or more gnome racial traits without being a gnome, but they would still have to meet any other prerequisites for taking a trait (such as the limitation on only being able to choose one trait from any category). And, as kinevon has pointed out, this would mean they would not be able to take any other social trait, irrespective of whether or not that trait was restricted to gnomes.

Even when the Adopted trait is specifically mentioned as being able to take said traits? To me, the confusion is why the basic trait categories was even used in this way when the traits was already a Race Trait.

My excitement of the Race Traits that didn't have them in Ultimate Campaign was to the sky, but the fact that only one trait with those categories previously was reprinted (Rapscilian), this even seems to be lacking for the other traits, especially those of the Social basic trait category.

I am in agreement, it needs clarification, and pointed out that those social traits can be taken with Adopted, which I consider a place holder for the third trait it allows.

As I mentioned, all the parenthetical mention of Social appears to be is a reminder that it exists, not a statement that it overrides the "You cannot take two traits from the same group." rules.

It is a placeholder, but, as a Social trait, it also blocks taking a Social trait with it. Which is why I mentioned that the easiest way to resolve the issue is to make it an untyped trait instead.

Would you rule that being able to take a Gnome trait with Adopted, which you can, as long as it isn't a Gnome Social trait, would allow you to take another trait from the same group, say if both of them were Combat traits?

John Francis wrote:

I would not read that parenthetical aside as overriding the restriction on choosing two traits of the same type; I read it as simply pointing out that taking "Adopted" would still override the requirement that a character has to be a gnome in order to take those traits, just as it does for other races.

As such, a character may be able to take one or more gnome racial traits without being a gnome, but they would still have to meet any other prerequisites for taking a trait (such as the limitation on only being able to choose one trait from any category). And, as kinevon has pointed out, this would mean they would not be able to take any other social trait, irrespective of whether or not that trait was restricted to gnomes.

Even when the Adopted trait is specifically mentioned as being able to take said traits? To me, the confusion is why the basic trait categories was even used in this way when the traits was already a Race Trait.

Taking Adopted doesn't say you can take any of the traits - it just loosens the restriction so that you can take some of them without being a gnome (without taking Adopted, none of those traits are available to you unless your character is a gnome).

Apparently you've already been explicitly told, by the then Campaign Coordinator, that you can't take another Social trait if you've taken Adopted. Why are you still questioning this?

Doesn't matter how many types people believe they are.

You are explicitly permitted to take any of them with Adopted.

Generally, this would not be the case. Specifically in this case, you can.

Except that Mike explicitly ruled that you can't do that. That if it says social, its a social trait, and adopted doesn't circumvent things.

The Gnome book is the only one that did this.

Oh, of course, if Campaign Leadership ruled otherwise, then that would take precedent.

I was unaware they had done so. Link?

That would provide the clarification that thaX is looking for.

Oh, of course, if Campaign Leadership ruled otherwise, then that would take precedent.

I was unaware they had done so. Link?

That would provide the clarification that thaX is looking for.

The most relevant comment I can find is HERE.

That seems to settle it. I found this exchange humorous, personally:

Dragnmoon wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

That is the word directly from James Jacobs.

I Almost let this Slip... You went to James on a Rules question? James!?

James developed the traits system so I figure it never hurts to go to the source

Now to just get this added to the Campaign Clarifications document =D

That was before Ultimate Campaign came out...

Its kind of funny that the social traits are the most likely to be passed on by culture and adoption but they can't, whereas your adoptive parents can take you to the dentist to get that horrible lack of overbite fixed so you get a bite attack (toothy)

Would you rule that being able to take a Gnome trait with Adopted, which you can, as long as it isn't a Gnome Social trait, would allow you to take another trait from the same group, say if both of them were Combat traits?

As Trait Bonuses (as most of these are) do not stack, I don't see any problem with that. Why not?

To take it further, each of the succeeding Companion books do not list Basic trait additions to the Race traits, having Regional and religion traits fill out a lot of the section instead. The Gnomes book, having come out first, did this as a template for others, then that was abandoned. (I am assuming, of course, I am not privy to developer notes)

With the book not mentioning the sub category in the newer source, I took it as a blanket effect, not having the basic trait sub-categories on those traits, simply being a "Race Trait."

This is what I need Clarified, if these traits are to be updated to the current standard or if they are the same as before with the reprinted exception.

That was before Ultimate Campaign came out...

For the umpteenth time, Ultimate Campaign didn't change anything.

It is the newer source.

I know, it only reprinted one trait, but that trait didn't have the additional requirement.

"Newer source" means nothing.

Hillis Mallory III wrote:

That was before Ultimate Campaign came out...

For the umpteenth time, Ultimate Campaign didn't change anything.

So, you are saying that Rapscallion is both a Gnome Race Trait (UCam) and a Gnome Race Trait/Combat Trait (Gnomes of Golarion), not just a Gnome Race Trait?

It's no different than Helpful.

One is Combat, one is Race.

It's not the first time we have 2 similarly named options.

They are the same trait, Nefreet, with an expanded explanation in the gnome book but the same mechanically (with the addition of being a Combat Trait as well)

All the traits, I believe, are reprints from the APG and the web download in the Ultimate Campaign.

My question, my concern, my overall want is to clarify once and for all if Adopted can take Race Traits of the particular race selected, or if the Social tag will make the choice useless for a character adopted by a gnome. However it is done, this document has the means to clarify the use of the Trait and if Ultimate Campaign (the newest source for the Race Traits qualifiers) removes this silly classification for this particular book (Gnome of Golaron).