Let's Be Clear

Jiggy: Seriously though, Racial Heritage: can it get me things from the Advanced Race Guide? Yes? No?

Compton: Jiggy, this is also the case for the Racial Heritage feat, which does not override the Additional Resources text that shows up under the Advanced Race Guide header.

Linky

I think a clarification that the race traits (Racial?) are no longer a part of the four basic categories since Ultimate Campaign needs to be addressed.

Here's something I found useful:

TheLoudMacLeod wrote:

One of my PCs wants to take the Adopted trait. He is a Half-Orc and wants to pick Humans as his adopted parents. With this choice he wants to pick the +2 to any ability score. Is this allowed?

No, you get a race trait...not a racial trait. Race traits can be found on pages 61-63 of Ultimate Campaign. Racial traits can be found in various places.

ThaX, there are more than just 4 types of Traits. Currently there are 13: Combat, Faith, Social, Magic, Race, Region, Campaign, Cosmic, Equipment, Mount, Faction, Family and Religion. The list in Ultimate Campaign is not exhaustive.

The fact that Gnomes of Golarion has a misprint referring to Race Traits as Racial Traits shouldn't have an impact on the 99% of the other material out there.

battle poi explanation that weapon is just a mess

The four basic traits (Combat, Social, Faith and Magic) is what I refer to. Ultimate Combat did not put the Race Traits into those additional categories as the companion books did. It is the newer source.

Edit The trait web download has 10 of each of these and there is more elsewhere, but for some reason the Race Traits (including those reprinted from elsewhere) was given one of these basic catigories as well as being a Race Trait. Ultimate Campaign did not list them as anything but Race Traits.

Your categorization is your own. There are no "four basic traits", Ultimate Campaign does indeed have Race Traits, and it being the "newer source" has nothing to do with anything (it's also not the "newest source").

The error in Gnomes of Golarion is a well recognized misprint and should not have any bearing on interpreting other sources. Plus, Stephen Radney-MacFarland clarified the difference in the post I linked.

It's been settled. Since the book won't be reprinted, it's the best we'll ever have.

Your categorization is your own. There are no "four basic traits", Ultimate Campaign does indeed have Race Traits, and it being the "newer source" has nothing to do with anything (it's also not the "newest source").

The error in Gnomes of Golarion is a well recognized misprint and should not have any bearing on interpreting other sources. Plus, Stephen Radney-MacFarland clarified the difference in the post I linked.

It's been settled. Since the book won't be reprinted, it's the best we'll ever have.

Actually, his characterization is not his own.

From the Pathfinder RPG Character Traits document:
Basic Traits: There are a total of 40 basic traits—ten each, split 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.

So, going back to the days when Season 1 was starting up, and the only traits available were the ones in this document, before the APG was published, many of us learned that the categories of Combat, Faith, Magic, and Social traits were all Basic traits. It still hangs on. Oh, and the quote above, is from page 3 of the document, which is, even now, the only always available source for traits, besides the campaign (faction) traits, for the Core campaign.

Got it. He kept referring to Ultimate Campaign, which has no such distinction.

Since the Traits document is not a PFRPG publication, it's probably a bad reference point.

Got it. He kept referring to Ultimate Campaign, which has no such distinction.

Since the Traits document is not a PFRPG publication, it's probably a bad reference point.

That same language exists in the APG, so it's not that bad of a reference point.

Nefreet wrote:

Got it. He kept referring to Ultimate Campaign, which has no such distinction.

Since the Traits document is not a PFRPG publication, it's probably a bad reference point.

That same language exists in the APG, so it's not that bad of a reference point.

Probably because that Traits document was, pretty much, just most of the Traits section that was going to be published in the APG, released before the APG was.

UndeadMitch wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

Got it. He kept referring to Ultimate Campaign, which has no such distinction.

Since the Traits document is not a PFRPG publication, it's probably a bad reference point.

That same language exists in the APG, so it's not that bad of a reference point.

Probably because that Traits document was, pretty much, just most of the Traits section that was going to be published in the APG, released before the APG was.

You picked up on that, did you?

Regardless, it's still an unnecessary categorization. The other points I highlighted still hold true. Being a "newer source" has no bearing on legality, and Ultimate Campaign is far from new anyways. And the Traits web enhancement is about as ancient as you can get. Calling something a "Basic Trait" has no relevance, either. And it has been thoroughly clarified that Race Traits ≠ Racial Traits.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the text he was referring to was PFRPG. Traits are kind of a mess in general. The whole race traits vs. racial traits business makes to want to drink anytime it comes up. On that note...

RACE AND RACIAL TRAITS, EVERYBODY DRINK! [/PFSdrinkinggame]

drinks

drinks

I'll drink to that.

*Looks at clock.*

At a slightly more reasonable time.

Race/racial traits, along with "When's the next Anniversary Edition?", are my personal Paizo drinking game. -_-

Race/racial traits, along with "When's the next Anniversary Edition?", are my personal Paizo drinking game. -_-

People wanting to play a drow/catfolk in PFS?

You forgot "won't somebody think about 2nd edition!" Threads popping up.

And paladin falling threads.

Take 10 threads...

Overpowered option X should be legal. It's not really disruptive, swearing to Grudd here!

Also, someone pointing out the drinking game and instructing others to drink? That's a drink.

Edit: And any time nosig mentions Take 10. Or repeats one of his old stories. Come to think of it, just drink heavily when you read one of his posts. Not picking on him, he just takes the good(ish)-natured ribbing better than some of the others here.

From the beginning...

In the (earlier)Companion books for the various races, the Race traits (denoted as Racial in the Gnome one) add one of the four Basic traits to all of the traits that are only for that race. This includes the Race traits from other sources (APG?) that were reprinted in the companion books.

Ultimate Campaign came out, and has a section listing traits, including a small offering of the (Previously released) Race Traits. These traits no longer are set in one of the four basic trait categories as well as being a Race Trait. They are just listed as Race Traits.

I assume that this would be a blanket effect, this needs clarified.

Oh, and I don't drink. Anyone got any Kool Aid?

Also, someone pointing out the drinking game and instructing others to drink? That's a drink.

Edit: And any time nosig mentions Take 10. Or repeats one of his old stories. Come to think of it, just drink heavily when you read one of his posts. Not picking on him, he just takes the good(ish)-natured ribbing better than some of the others here.

yeah, or whenever he posts as one of his PCs!

drink!

Oh, and I don't drink. Anyone got any Kool Aid?

ohhhh... they told me long ago, "don't drink the Kool Aid"!

Ultimate Campaign came out, and has a section listing traits, including a small offering of the (Previously released) Race Traits. These traits no longer are set in one of the four basic trait categories as well as being a Race Trait. They are just listed as Race Traits.

I assume that this would be a blanket effect, this needs clarified.

I'm trying to clarify it for you here. Ultimate Campaign didn't change anything. It's purely your categorization that is causing confusion.

Say you purchase Wayangs of Golarion, and inside is a Wayang Race Trait called "Creepy". It gives +2 Intimidate. Two years later you purchase Ultimate Traits, and inside is a Social Trait called "Creepy". It gives +2 Intimidate. This newer version doesn't automatically replace the old one. You can choose either.

Sometimes Campaign Leadership releases a ruling or updates the Additional Resources to clarify that the original version is no longer valid, but that is not the general rule.

Forget that the Traits Web Enhancement used the words "Basic Traits". There is no mechanical need to keep defining Traits as "Basic". The only classification that matters are the 13 types.

Yes, that is the point. Since Ultimate Campaign, I can take Adopted with one of the Race Traits that used to also have the Social basic trait signifier that it NOW no longer has.

I could not before. The one specific one I have taken and wanted to take in the past is Adopted (Gnome) with the Gnome Race (Racial in the book) Trait Etymoligist.

So... Where's the problem, again?

So... Where's the problem, again?

I think it was that, while the Race Traits repritned in Ultimate Campaign are just Race Traits now, the ones not reprinted still have one of the other trait types attached to them.

So, the clarification being sought is whether the other Race Traits, that were not reprinted, can be unhooked from any other trait type than Race.

They are explicitly of both categories?

I've never heard of such a thing, though I don't own the book to check it for myself.

If that's the case, then no, they are actually of both types, and you could not gain access to them via Adopted, as it itself is a Social Trait.

They are explicitly of both categories?

I've never heard of such a thing, though I don't own the book to check it for myself.

If that's the case, then no, they are actually of both types, and you could not gain access to them via Adopted, as it itself is a Social Trait.

Its more like a Genus/Species thing, when Species is the only thing that matters. Basic is a completely superfluous superacatagory

Hillis uses the example of Etymologist, it is a social trait in Gnomes of Golarion that is only available for Gnomes, and at the beginning of the entire section on traits, the book also refers to the traits in the book as racial traits, before then classifying them as combat, faith, magic, and social traits.

Yeah, I've kinda wondered the same thing about the traits in Halflings of Golarion. There are race traits in there, but then there are also social and religion traits (I think - not looking at the book now). I'm pretty sure those only count as social or religion traits, not as race traits, and I've never been sure if only halflings can take them.

Fortunately, it's a short list of traits. XD

Yes, The Companion books had them fettered out into the four basic trait categories as well as being Race Traits. They reprinted the two Race Traits from the earlier source when they did (APG?).

When the Ultimate Campaign book came out, those second set of classifications were gone. I need clarification that all Race Traits will not have those secondary basic trait categories as well as the Race category for those traits. The Gnome book uses "Racial" as the term, but the section is listing Race Traits, including previous ones from the previous hardback.

The Halflings of Golarion lists traits without the four basic qualifiers, but has Regional and Religion Traits, still only can be taken by halflings, or those with Adopted. (These, I think, would not change as they are not a part of the Basic Traits the others were)

The five Race Traits are not split into one of the four basic traits and the others have areas or Deities that are required to take them. The whole section is Race Traits.

Halflings is a newer book and I believe follows the break in design to fetter out Race Traits further into the basic four, giving out Regional and Religion traits instead. It also didn't reprint any of the Traits from the APG.

The Gnomes of Golarion, printed well before, has them in Combat, Faith, Magic and Social traits, making Adopted basically useless for the very traits that make the most sense to take. It reprints Rapscallion from APG, making it a Combat trait as well as a Race Trait.

The Ultimate Campaign takes the basic trait qualifiers out of the equation. The clarification that is needed is if that does, in fact, take that off of all of them, which it should.

Apologies for the double post...

Okay, so Etymologist isn't a (Race, Social) Trait, it's a (Social) Trait with "Requirement: Gnome"?

Then it's a Social Trait, and couldn't be taken with Adopted.

Sounds like any of the various human Race Traits with "Requirement: [ethnicity]". They're just Traits with an additional requirement.

Okay, so Etymologist isn't a (Race, Social) Trait, it's a (Social) Trait with "Requirement: Gnome"?

Then it's a Social Trait, and couldn't be taken with Adopted.

Sounds like any of the various human Race Traits with "Requirement: [ethnicity]". They're just Traits with an additional requirement.

This is my understanding as well.

Nefreet wrote:

Okay, so Etymologist isn't a (Race, Social) Trait, it's a (Social) Trait with "Requirement: Gnome"?

Then it's a Social Trait, and couldn't be taken with Adopted.

Sounds like any of the various human Race Traits with "Requirement: [ethnicity]". They're just Traits with an additional requirement.

This is my understanding as well.

Ditto.

Okay, so Etymologist isn't a (Race, Social) Trait, it's a (Social) Trait with "Requirement: Gnome"?

Then it's a Social Trait, and couldn't be taken with Adopted.

Sounds like any of the various human Race Traits with "Requirement: [ethnicity]". They're just Traits with an additional requirement.

The newer source does not list those additions, they are just Race Traits. It never made sense that Adopted counted against getting the very traits that are the most likely to be used with that trait.

That is what needs clarified, whether or not Ultimate Campaign removes the basic trait qualifiers from the rest of the traits as it does the reprinted ones. I wish it would have listed them all, myself, instead of a couple for each.

It also is sort of weird that doing this in those earlier books meant that taking one of those traits limited you in what else you could take from there.

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, 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.

The same text, as has been mentioned, was also in the APG.

The issue is that, in some of the early race books, instead of just setting the various Race traits as Race traits, many of them also got one of the APG-called Basic categories added.

When some of those Race traits were reprinted in a latter book, they were just set as Race traits, and the APC-called Basic category qualifier was removed, opening several of them up for use with Adopted, since they were no longer Social and Race traits, but just Race traits.

Now, there were several Race traits in those early <Race> of Golarion books that were not reprinted, so they only have the references where they have two type qualifiers, instead of just the Race qualifier.

ThaX is asking for a clarification if the removal of the non-Race trait category demonstrated in the reprinted traits, should also be extended to those other Race+Category traits, as well.

ThaX is referencing that language, which is in BOTH the Web Traits document and the APG, because it is the presumed reason those early Race traits also had the other trait category added.

But it doesn't sound like those earlier Traits were Race Traits at all. They were Social Traits with the added requirement of [race], just as several of the newer Traits have similar requirements.

In fact, with that in mind, having them referenced as "racial traits" makes sense. The phrase wasn't referring to "Racial Traits", or misworded "Race Traits". We're overapplying our framework of understanding to a simple statement that "these are gnome racial traits", as anyone would use in common conversation.

This is the text that is confusing to him.

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.)

For more information on character traits and how they work, as well as even more traits to choose from, see the free Pathfinder RPG Character Traits Web Enhancement at paizo.com/traits.

The book then lists combat traits, faith traits, magic traits, and social traits.

First, let us remember that the Traits listed in the web download (Later reprinted in the APG) listed basic traits that come in four categories. (Combat, Faith, Magic and Social)

The section in the Gnome (and other books that came out before Ultimate Campaign) is a section for Race Traits (Miss named "Racial"). The writers add one of the basic traits to those traits in addition to being a Race Trait. See paragraph quoted by Undead Mitch above, replace "Racial" with "Race."

Since then, the APG and Ultimate Campaign removed this addition with the Traits they had reprinted. My contention is that it would be a blanket effect, that all those with one of the four basic trait qualifiers saddled to them are simply "Race Traits" as they should have been.

This is what I think needs clarified.

If this is not the case, then Adopted needs clarification to be able to take a Social Race Trait, using Adopted as a placeholder for that trait. (Meaning the character only used one "slot" to get Adopted (Gnome) Etymoligist)

Otherwise, being adopted and learning social skills of the race merits no benefit.

And the reprinted Traits in Ultimate Combat need to have the basic trait qualifier added to it if the others are still saddled by them.

The newer book (Halflings) did not do this for the five traits in that book, it added Regional and Religion traits that are of particular areas and Gods.

Something needs some clarification as to how it works, otherwise the Adopted Trait is broken.

Can you point to any other specific books that do that, besides Gnomes of Golarion? I just checked the only other older PC I have that would have race traits, and Dwarves of Golarion didn't have it.

Is there any companion book that came out before Gnomes?

This might simply be a clarification of that book to redact the basic trait mods of those traits that is needed.

I had though another book (that I do not have, PDF or physical) had the same type of groupings. I believe the Gnome book may have come out before APG, but I could be wrong. The "... of Golaron" books other than Gnomes that I have just have Traits and the Regional and Religion afterward.

The Kobold one has Traits related to their scale color.

Hmmmm... Gnomes tend to mess things up, don't they. I think a Ticker Gnome may have gotten into the Paizo offices at that time....

Gnomes of Golarion, pg. 14 wrote:

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.)

Thank you. I don't own the book, but this part makes it clear to me:

a character of a different race could still select a gnome racial trait if she has the Adopted trait

That right there is the important "Specific trumps General" rule. It doesn't matter what those Traits are classified as, the book states that they may be taken with Adopted.

First, let us remember that...

No, let us *forget* that, since that categorization has zero meaning.

UndeadMitch wrote:

Gnomes of Golarion, pg. 14 wrote:

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.)

Thank you. I don't own the book, but this part makes it clear to me:

The part that matters wrote:

a character of a different race could still select a gnome racial trait if she has the Adopted trait

That right there is the important "Specific trumps General" rule. It doesn't matter what those Traits are classified as, the book states that they may be taken with Adopted.

Ah! Thank you!

This needs affirmed (clarified) in this new document.