I was just curious to see if Paizo scrapped the "Trait" system in Beta?
I have not yet found any reference to them in the Beta guide.
(I actually hope they have. With increased Feats, I don't think that Traits are needed as much -- plus they just add another layer of complexity to the game -- and makes it more overwhelming to new players who are trying to figure out the game system. I did like the general idea of them, but all this min/max'ing has to stop somewhere, and rp'ing has to take over!)
Creative Director
|
I was just curious to see if Paizo scrapped the "Trait" system in Beta?
I have not yet found any reference to them in the Beta guide.
(I actually hope they have. With increased Feats, I don't think that Traits are needed as much -- plus they just add another layer of complexity to the game -- and makes it more overwhelming to new players who are trying to figure out the game system. I did like the general idea of them, but all this min/max'ing has to stop somewhere, and rp'ing has to take over!)
Traits were never IN the Beta in the first place. They've always been sort of an additional, optional rule for GMs to use to help their players get into a new adventure path. You could even see traits as a system of bribes to trick players into learning more about the game world, I suppose.
In any event, they're not a part of the game itself, and while we'll continue to use them in Adventure Path Player's Guides as a way to give players a way to invest their characters in the campaign they're about to play, they won't be appearing in the base game.
It's interesting that you consider traits as "min/maxing," when in fact they depend much more on roleplaying decisions than feats, though. Before you pick a trait, you have to know something about your character's history, after all, and picking a trait gives the GM and other players an immediate indication of your character's history—something that a plain old feat doesn't do.
It's interesting that you consider traits as "min/maxing," when in fact they depend much more on roleplaying decisions than feats, though. Before you pick a trait, you have to know something about your character's history, after all, and picking a trait gives the GM and other players an immediate indication of your character's history—something that a plain old feat doesn't do.
Thanks for the update.
The reason I feel that traits are min/max'ing, is because I believe many people will look at the benefits first and pick the benefits that best stat up their characters... as a side benefit they may now have an element they "might" incorporate into their character's history, but more than likely they may never make reference to it again or roleplay it accordingly. (Of course this may sound very jaded, but a couple years of rp'ing with min/max character optimizers will do that too you :)
I think not making them canon, but keeping them open as an option in the adventure paths is a great idea!
|
Traits were never IN the Beta in the first place. They've always been sort of an additional, optional rule for GMs to use to help their players get into a new adventure path. You could even see traits as a system of bribes to trick players into learning more about the game world, I suppose.
In any event, they're not a part of the game itself, and while we'll continue to use them in Adventure Path Player's Guides as a way to give players a way to invest their characters in the campaign they're about to play, they won't be appearing in the base game.
I think it would be great if they were at least mentioned in the "DMG" part of Pathfinder, with a bit of information on why you might want to use them, and how to create your own traits.
I think it would be great if they were at least mentioned in the "DMG" part of Pathfinder, with a bit of information on why you might want to use them, and how to create your own traits.
Second. Also, while I can them being a Munchkiny thing, I wouldn't use them like that, but I know players that would.
Traits are a great way to add some depth to a character, as well as a little pizzazz.
To do away with the min/max'ing bit, perhaps traits should have positive and negative aspects, much like they did in the computer RPG Arcanum -- with the good you get the bad (just like in real life), and things balance out.
That way, folks could either take a trait or two, or leave them. The end result would be a more interesting, but not necessarily more powerful, character.
|
I like traits better than regional feats (as they are half a feat you get to pick two, which gives more depth) and I like regional feats better than there being no region character flavour. So, not only do I like traits, I don't want them just tied to Adventure Paths; they should be in all the campaign material...
I wouldn't like them having a penalty unless the bonus was exceptionally big and then I am more likely to just say that the trait shouldn't exist anyhow.
It wouldn't be a bad idea to mention traits in the rpg rules, either (as suggested above) and give a couple of examples...
The reason I feel that traits are min/max'ing, is because I believe many people will look at the benefits first and pick the benefits that best stat up their characters... as a side benefit they may now have an element they "might" incorporate into their character's history, but more than likely they may never make reference to it again or roleplay it accordingly. (Of course this may sound very jaded, but a couple years of rp'ing with min/max character optimizers will do that too you :)
I think not making them canon, but keeping them open as an option in the adventure paths is a great idea!
This is why I assign traits based on the background the PCs give me.