| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of what I'm trying to do with my new rules is set things up to avoid future rules bloat. So, for example, rather than releasing one set of traits after another, why not have guidelines that let players custom build traits for their characters?
Here's what I came up with as a starting point:
Custom Traits
At 1st level, a character gets one or more custom traits. The general rules for traits are as follows:
A trait can provide a +1 bonus to attack rolls under certain, defined conditions, or
A trait can provide a +1 bonus to damage rolls under certain, defined conditions, or
A trait can provide a +1 bonus to a specific saving throw under certain, defined conditions, or
A trait can provide a +2 bonus to a specific skill check under certain, defined conditions.
For every two points of trait bonuses a character has, he must also have one point of trait penalties. Trait penalties follow the same general rules listed above, but provide a corresponding penalty instead of a bonus.
No character can have more than four points of trait bonuses and two points of trait penalties. Categories of bonuses and penalties can stack. No single trait can provide more than a +2 bonus (for attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws) or a +4 bonus (for skill checks). Likewise, no single trait can provide than a -2 penalty (for attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws) or a -4 penalty (for skill checks).
For Example
Eric doesn't like skill consolidation in Pathfinder. He doesn't think his character should be just as good with seeing, hearing, and searching even though all three tasks are based on his character's Perception skill. Eric decides his character has weak sight due to congenital eye defects. To compensate, his character has developed an especially keen sense of hearing. Eric writes up these two traits for DM approval:
Keen Ears
My character enjoys a +4 trait bonus on Perception checks made to hear things.
Weak Eyes
My character suffers a -2 trait penalty on Perception checks made to see things.
Feedback
So, what do you think? What should be added? What should be changed?
It's an interesting system, even though I'm generally leery of allowing custom conditionals. It tends to be "I get this bonus when I do this (which I always will do), and get this penalty when I do that (which I will never do)."
Also... Couldn't he make a trait be +10 to sound-based Perception checks, and -5 to sight-based?
It's more the net effect that needs to be limited, not the ratio.
It's an interesting system, even though I'm generally leery of allowing custom conditionals. It tends to be "I get this bonus when I do this (which I always will do), and get this penalty when I do that (which I will never do)."
It would be incumbent upon the DM to smack down silliness as well as to implement the good and the bad into the game.
Also... Couldn't he make a trait be +10 to sound-based Perception checks, and -5 to sight-based?
Nope. To quote me: "No single trait can provide more than a +2 bonus (for attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws) or a +4 bonus (for skill checks)."
I know traits are pretty core in Pathfinder but I'd prefer to see them as an extension of the Feat Rules.
ie. A trait is a lesser feat sometimes used to provide background and flesh out a character condition.
I'm concerned that players will use each of these rules to their fullest extent and the further traits get from feats the greater the power creep.
I think you need to preserve the weaker more regional traits.
ie:
Swamp Traveler: You have a 12foot punt and poling stick and are familiar with the backwater canals of Mudtown.
That to me is a great trait because it is important to Mudtown and gives the player a leg up with the story. Its not something that will have much bearing even 5 levels later.
Sigurd
I'm concerned that players will use each of these rules to their fullest extent and the further traits get from feats the greater the power creep.
That's a risk. But, as 3.0/3.5 proved, even limiting oneself to official products is abusable and power creepy.
I prefer to operate on the assumption that most players aren't wankers and that most DMs have the intestinal fortitude to say, "No." Of course, that core assumption could end being very wrong, but I can't think of a way to write rules to compensate. Heck, I can't think of a single RPG that has managed to avoid the pitfalls of people who are intent on abusing the system.
So, what I'd like, is a reasonable easy-to-understand set of guidelines backed up by examples that can serve to prod the imagination, reward creativity, and help DMs and players make the game theirs.
So, with all that in mind, I guess my Big Question is: Where do the guidelines need to be drawn?
I like your initial general start but I think a part of the definition should be that a Trait can be no more than half the average power level of a Feat.
There is a core feat that allows you to take two traits so I think this is pretty straight forward.
Traits are typically part of character creation and take the place of regional feats in other systems.
I think you have to get to a purpose for Traits or call them simply not quite feats.
Sigurd
I like your initial general start but I think a part of the definition should be that a Trait can be no more than half the average power level of a Feat.
Good point. I'll have to let this idea simmer for a bit and then revisit it with fresh eyes. Can't see the forest when one is distracted by all the damn trees.
:D
btw.
I'm not thinking less of players or dms. Its a design problem. If you don't calibrate a system against its fellow system it wont be calibrated. You can't just have faith in a DM's omniscience to fix dangers you are designing into the system. Guidelines especially should be informed of similar and contributing game mechanics.
Sigurd
I'm not thinking less of players or dms. Its a design problem. If you don't calibrate a system against its fellow system it wont be calibrated. You can't just have faith in a DM's omniscience to fix dangers you are designing into the system. Guidelines especially should be informed of similar and contributing game mechanics.
Exactly. The way my brain usually works is:
1. I want to do this!
2. Here's a way to do it!
3. Oh, wait. I forgot about the rest of the system. Back to step 2.
:)
I went back to the drawing board a bit. Traits are supposed to be half as powerful as feats. So, with that in mind, a trait could...
...add +1 to attack rolls half the time. This is half as effective as, say, Weapon Focus.
...add +1 to damage all the time (?) or +2 to damage half the time (sort of like a limited Weapon Specialization).
...add +2 to one skill or +1 to two skills.
...add +1 to one save all the time or +2 to one save about half the time.
...add +1 to AC about half the time.
...add +2 to initiative.
Et cetera.
The trick becomes the limitations. Obviously, a trait that gives +1 to attack rolls with a longsword is equal to Weapon Focus unless limited somehow. It also stands to reason that the limitation should actually be limiting.
So, one could go for:
Fancy Fencer
You get a +1 to attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC when fighting with a one-handed weapon while holding nothing in your off-hand.
(This would be the equivalent of two traits.)
Since I like the idea of traits also imposing penalties, the same character could have:
Wrong-Headed
You suffer a -1 penalty to checks to resist Charisma-based effects originating from female humanoids.
Thoughts?