So I was looking over the traits and I noticed something:
The traits for magic didn't seem quite up to par to me. You get a slight boost for one spell? Most feats that deal with such things boost a school of magic by a significant amount.
Also the skill traits give a bonus of +1 to two skills then makes one of those skills a class skill. In pathfinder beta that's a solid +4 to the skill you didn't have before, while in 3.5 it's the difference between double spending skill points for a +11 and spending 1 point a rank for 23 ranks. Huge differences in power level.
Some of the combat skills also jump out -- Armor training is nice, while reactive giving a +2 bonus to initiative could concievably give someone a +10 Initiative bonus at first level (dex 18 improved initiative reactive trait), is especially good for a rogue.
So my thought on taking the magic traits to (quite frankly) where I want them is to have them apply to a subschool. So if you grab one you could apply it to (fire) or (healing) possibly even (summoning) instead of one spell you either won't have for a while, or won't be useful past level 5.
What do you think?
I seem to recall that all of the Magic traits are pretty poor except for the Practiced-Spellcaster-style trait (which is about right) and one that is probably too good (whose name escapes me).
EDIT: I found the one I thought was too good: Magical Lineage. Reducing metamagic costs is a powerful ability, even for one spell (IMO).
Yeah I agree on that one (mainly because it works with any metamagic feat, which is rare, if it was limited to just one metamagic feat that would be different).
I don't think they're underpowered.
Since any bonus they grant stack w/ Feats/other stuff, it could get out of hand if they were stronger.
Two I think are useful:
Birthmark (+2 vs. Charm/Compulsion, Holy Symbol)
Magical Knack (+2 CL <= HD)
I feel the point of Traits is providing an area where characters can solidify their background WITHOUT "pressure" to make each and every Feat "count", and supporting aspects that aren't really addressed as much by Feats (e.g. adding Class Skills). If none of the Magic Traits really resonate with you, take the General or Combat ones, they can round out your character in ways that might be too "expensive" using Feats/Ranks.
I have a Rogue/Sivhana Cleric character with both of the above traits, and it fits great.
I have a Barbarian character with the "Healer" (+Class Skill) trait and the "Wealthy Parents" trait. Fills in a gap without over-powering, and makes the character concept better represented than just Class Abilities + Feat + Skill Points do themselves.
Creative Director
|
If a trait feels roughly half as powerful as a similarly-themed feat would be, then the trait is perfect. They're not meant as much to be things you can further numbercrunch power into your character with, but bribes to actually work up a background and history for your character. They're basically free bonuses that pretty much stack with everything else, so they shouldn't be too powerful to begin with. Nor should they be mathematically balanced with laser precision to be equally good choices among each other, nor can they be, since a trait used for character A won't be as useful to character B anyway.
If a trait feels roughly half as powerful as a similarly-themed feat would be, then the trait is perfect.
Exactly; that's why a trait like "Gifted Adept" is weak. No one in their right mind would spend a feat to get +1 caster level on two spells.
Actually, the other ones are mostly O.K., although some are below average (e.g. +1 to one skill instead of +1 to two skills).
I agree they can't and shouldn't be absolutely perfect in balance... however several are vastly more useful than others, and while I like several of them, I can't help but look at them and go but why would I take this when it is so very limited, and this one over here is just as valid a choice for my character's history but at least twice as useful.
As give me's if the DM looked at my character history and assigned them I wouldn't complain about which I got, however I would notice if I got "classically schooled" for my wizard, and the party cleric got "rich parents" (which in my opinion is a bit too much gold at level 1).
In all I love the idea of traits, and I like the flavor they offer, however I just see those magic traits and go "but this isn't near half a feat and that's a shame cause if it when to a subschool I would so take gifted adept instead of rich parents, or charming which offers an actual DC boost to a full class of spells."
I honestly am not looking to complain per se, but I saw something that was off to me and my mouth took off without the rest of me.
|
Creative Director
|
Exactly; that's why a trait like "Gifted Adept" is weak. No one in their right mind would spend a feat to get +1 caster level on two spells.
It's not so weak if your character concept is based on a specific spell, of course. Say, if you wanted to play a multiclassed bard/fighter with only a tiny smattering of spells and wanted to play off that spellcasting as something your character learned at school before having to spend the rest of his career in a gritty grisly army, basically becoming a bard 1/fighter 19 in the end.
No character concept is "bad" in my book if the backstory's interesting. In fact, a character like the one I just described is more interesting to me than is a super number-crunched character. I might not be in my right mind, but that's fine. The game is for everyone, after all, not just those in their "right mind."
Exactly; that's why a trait like "Gifted Adept" is weak. No one in their right mind would spend a feat to get +1 caster level on two spells.It's not so weak if your character concept is based on a specific spell, of course. Say, if you wanted to play a multiclassed bard/fighter with only a tiny smattering of spells and wanted to play off that spellcasting as something your character learned at school before having to spend the rest of his career in a gritty grisly army, basically becoming a bard 1/fighter 19 in the end.
...in which case the Magical Knack trait is much, much better because it gives a +2 caster level to every spell, not +1 caster level to one spell!
See, my first thought was that a Trait called 'Gifted Adept' would have something to do with the Adept NPC class. +1 CL to all Adept spells or something, which would raise eyebrows, but hardly compensate for the Adept classes built-in limitations compared to other spellcasting classes. :)
Now that would be interesting!
*kicks dust* DM wouldn't let me play an adept...
|
Exactly; that's why a trait like "Gifted Adept" is weak. No one in their right mind would spend a feat to get +1 caster level on two spells.It's not so weak if your character concept is based on a specific spell, of course. Say, if you wanted to play a multiclassed bard/fighter with only a tiny smattering of spells and wanted to play off that spellcasting as something your character learned at school before having to spend the rest of his career in a gritty grisly army, basically becoming a bard 1/fighter 19 in the end.
No character concept is "bad" in my book if the backstory's interesting. In fact, a character like the one I just described is more interesting to me than is a super number-crunched character. I might not be in my right mind, but that's fine. The game is for everyone, after all, not just those in their "right mind."
Wow, you just described my character in my current play-by-post. I guess I'm not in my right mind either.
Wow, you just described my character in my current play-by-post. I guess I'm not in my right mind either.
Which two spells did he take "Gifted Adept" for?
|
|
Which two spells did he take "Gifted Adept" for?Wow, you just described my character in my current play-by-post. I guess I'm not in my right mind either.
Oh sorry, I meant the Bard/Fighter part. She actually took the charming trait, not Gifted Adept. Anyways, the idea he was descibing was similar enough to my character, at least, I just implimented it with a different trait. It still only gives me a bonus to 2 spells, ever.
|
I've seen a few 'optimized' builds based around a Magic Missile wizard (there are even a few PrCs devoted to that concept, like the Argent Hand or whatever), or the excessive use of Scorching Ray, so I could see the use of a 'Gifted Adept' feat, but I've never been entirely in love with those sorts of concepts, and, in just about every case, the Feat's usefulness dies when the spells level-based progression ends (at 9th level for Magic Missile, for instance).
At 2nd level, the Magic Missile 'adept' is going to be throwing 2 missiles instead of one, which is pretty hot. At 9th level, he's gonna be just like every other Wizard on the planet, but down one Feat...
Then again, this 'downside' is meaningless in a game that isn't going to 9th level (such as a short campaign, or convention game, or whatever), or if you are multi-classed and your spellcaster level isn't 'going there,' or if you can retrain and lose the Feat later, so there are tons of places where this sort of thing would be a leg up with no downside.
Hogarth:
Magical Knack increases all spells' CL by 2 *UP TO CHARACTER LEVEL*
Gifted Adept increases two spells' CL by 1 and *ISN'T* limited by character level.
Magical Knack is good for multi-class characters, but provides NO benefit to full casters,
while Gifted Adept is the better choice for full casters.
Gifted Adept is the better choice for full casters.
I understand. In fact, I have a character in Pathfinder Society play who has the equivalent bonus feat/trait (Forgotten Magic). But that does not make it in any way, shape, or form worth 1/2 a feat.
As pointed out above, there are a variety of feats out there that give +1 CL to all fire spells (for example). But +1 CL to two specific spells you pick beforehand? There's a reason we've never seen a feat like that.
|
Creative Director
|
Gifted Adept is the better choice for full casters.I understand. In fact, I have a character in Pathfinder Society play who has the equivalent bonus feat/trait (Forgotten Magic). But that does not make it in any way, shape, or form worth 1/2 a feat.
As pointed out above, there are a variety of feats out there that give +1 CL to all fire spells (for example). But +1 CL to two specific spells you pick beforehand? There's a reason we've never seen a feat like that.
Part of that reason is timidity, I suspect. With traits, we're doing something really new, and a lot of it is experimental. With the two traits in question, we were hoping to find out if the difference between ultimate customization (pick two spells) balances with limited choice (all fire spells). There's not a lot of fire spells to choose from if you're a bard or a ranger, for example, so Gifted Adept is a better choice for them than it is the other trait.
I think it works great and fulfills how Paizo's described the intent with Traits.
"Gifted Adept" seems to approximate just that, the "Teacher's Pet" novice mage who's got "straight A's" and seemed to have some advantage off the bat. Maybe they're cocky because of that. But following the adventurer's life, those initial advantages probably don't mean quite so much after a while - any mage who's survived things long enough to make it past the low levels is probably just as good as the "Teacher's Pet" who thought they were so superior.
So it's certainly some benefit, and can offer a spring-board for role-play. Goals accomplished.
And I'm sure there's a Trait granting Handle Animal as a Class Skill if you still think it's below you :-)
Magical Knack is the no-brainer trait in my Crimson Throne campaign, where the PCs all started out as aristocrats. I just launched a Legacy of Fire campaign where the PCs all start out with undead hit dice, and I suspect that Magical Knack will be extremely popular there, too.
At 2nd level, the Magic Missile 'adept' is going to be throwing 2 missiles instead of one, which is pretty hot. At 9th level, he's gonna be just like every other Wizard on the planet, but down one Feat...
Except this is a trait, not a feat. Characters get two traits "for free" at 1st level; they can also use a feat to gain two additional traits (four total).
That +1 CL affects the spell's range as well, IIRC, so even past 9th level a magic missile 'adept' still gets a benefit over "every other Wizard on the planet."
So it's certainly some benefit, and can offer a spring-board for role-play. Goals accomplished.
I don't deny all of that. I just think that, in light of James's statement that "if a trait is half as powerful as a comparable feat, then it's perfect" (rephrased), that some of the traits (e.g. Gifted Adept) are far from "perfect". If the official party line was that traits are supposed to give little actual benefit and are just neat roleplaying perks, then it would be just fine.
A much more interesting feat (to me) is "Charming" that gives a +1 DC bonus to all language-dependent spells, for instance.
Hogarth:
Magical Knack increases all spells' CL by 2 *UP TO CHARACTER LEVEL*
Gifted Adept increases two spells' CL by 1 and *ISN'T* limited by character level.
Magical Knack is good for multi-class characters, but provides NO benefit to full casters,
while Gifted Adept is the better choice for full casters.
Magical Knack will also be good for either Paladins or Rangers who want a slightly better caster level than they normally have.
Doug
At 2nd level, the Magic Missile 'adept' is going to be throwing 2 missiles instead of one, which is pretty hot. At 9th level, he's gonna be just like every other Wizard on the planet, but down one Feat...Except this is a trait, not a feat. Characters get two traits "for free" at 1st level; they can also use a feat to gain two additional traits (four total).
That +1 CL affects the spell's range as well, IIRC, so even past 9th level a magic missile 'adept' still gets a benefit over "every other Wizard on the planet."
Not to mention improving caster level checks to overcome spell resistance. That still doesn't make it worth half a feat, though.