Am I alone in not liking Traits?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Traits seem to pop up in almost every product. When I saw them in the back of the APG, I was almost certain that they were an optional rule, but most optional rules don't permeate the line as much as Traits have.

After two campaigns in which Traits were used, I'm about to start a third and I don't think I'm going to use them. I've seen too many backstories warped to allow for a Trait that a player wants for mechanical reasons, and I've likewise seen other (more interesting) parts of background stories edited because the player doesn't want to take a mechanically inferior Trait that matches. I guess I see Traits as limiting creativity rather than enhancing it while they are used to gain a mechanical benefit.

I suppose I could allow the flavor of Traits with no mechanical benefits gained. Now people might take a few catchy ones for flavor since the mechanical boosts mean nothing. Those that go into greater detail on their backstories can dispense with this step - it'll really be just for those that don't put effort into their backstories.

Is there anything I'm missing by dropping the mechanical side of Traits from my game? Sure, it means that the min-max players of the group have a slight downgrade, but is there anything else i should consider?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

They are an optional rule that started before APG, they are essential the a Upbringing Feat that past Settings by WotC of used (ie Forgotten Realms I believe). Don't Like them, take them out.


Being the min/max-er that I am, I love the traits for shoring up certain weaknesses I have. It's a nice boon for PCs. Have a subpar Fort Save? Alleviate that some. Worried about making those concentrations checks? The trait bonus is better than combat casting in some ways.

At the same time, the game played fine before the introduction of traits, so you should feel free to take them out. However, if they offer no benefit, what would be the point in choosing traits? Perhaps you could simply eliminate the traits you dislike. (i.e. you find a trait that boosts initiative to be cheesy and taken for pure crunch, but perhaps you find a trait that makes survival into a class skill perfectly fine) Then maybe add some of your own making?

Well, with or without traits, Pathfinder will remain an awesome game. :3

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I never use traits or favored class bonuses. If I even remember I'm supposed to have a favored class bonus, I just pretend I added it to HP.


I honestly don't understand why you'd even keep traits if you're going to eliminate the mechanical aspect of them. Then they're just... descriptions?

I don't disagree with traits being used in a min-max sorta way, but I really only see that with the unique traits. You could simply boil it all down into the following and let people choose one/two:

  • One skill becomes a class skill for all classes.
  • Gain +1 to two separate skills or +2 to a single skill.
  • Gain +1 to one saving throw of your choice or +2 to a specific form of save (compulsion, language dependent, disease, fear, trap, etc.)
  • Gain +1 attack to attacks of opportunity.
  • Gain +1 to CMD against specific combat maneuver.

After that you're only left with options that shore up a character's weakness without really leaving room for exploitation.

Just my opinion, though.


Sean FitzSimon wrote:

I honestly don't understand why you'd even keep traits if you're going to eliminate the mechanical aspect of them. Then they're just... descriptions?

Exactly right. They would only be there for the players that don't bother with making background and instead just pick a few Traits (usually for the mechanical benefits), string them together with a sentence or two, and call that a background. Now they can do that, but there is no mechanical benefit so the chances that they'll take some of what would normally be the less mechanically appealing choices goes up increasing the variety in character backgrounds (or so I hope).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the concept behind them. The balance leaves a lot to be desired, and I positively LOATHE all of the situational bonuses. +1 to hit while flanking, +1 to crit rolls, +1 to everything after eating a peach flavoured dessert...

Did we really need more fiddly bonuses to deal with?

Otherwise we're scrounging up amazing boosts to our initiative or shoring up our saves with little regard to our backstory because there's little incentive to do otherwise...

That said, I totally dig the campaign traits. Though it's thrown my players for a bit of a spin. "Wait, so... I find my character's motivation as... a part of the story? What about my dark tortured past that has me worshipping Urgathoa and systematically murdering halflings? What do you mean that isn't the campaign you want to run?"

... in all seriousness though, I havent had any complaints from my players yet, and it's a nice easy way of tying my players into the setting without feeling too restrictive.


They are kinda half a feat, some traits are pretty decent fixes, but overall they do get a little too much attention, very few are particulary interesting.

+2 caster level for multi-class casters, make something a class skill, +1 on a save, +1 ki pool. I don't use traits at the moment, using alternate rules for multi-class casters, but I can see that being a decent one.

I am considering making skill focus a trait with a +1 bonus and an additional bonus per 4 levels. The feat extra traits could be a nice feat if it included this form of skill focus, kinda build your own feat kinda thing. Also, some feats might deserve a downgrade to trait with minor adjustment.


It would take a little work, but perhaps give your players a list of traits without the mechanical bonuses listed. That way they would pick them based off of their flavor, and then after everyone had made their character, you could tell them what bonuses they received.
Explain it to them what you are doing, and that if they start looking them up in books or online, and 'cheating' your system, you will just remove them all together.
They are supposed to be flavor first, with a small mechanical bonus as a , uh... bonus.

YMMV


Izkrael wrote:

It would take a little work, but perhaps give your players a list of traits without the mechanical bonuses listed. That way they would pick them based off of their flavor, and then after everyone had made their character, you could tell them what bonuses they received.

Explain it to them what you are doing, and that if they start looking them up in books or online, and 'cheating' your system, you will just remove them all together.
They are supposed to be flavor first, with a small mechanical bonus as a , uh... bonus.

YMMV

This likely wouldn't work very well with my players. They are pretty familiar with the "good" Traits, and getting "assigned" bonuses rather than selecting them is not going to sit well with some of them. Far easier to just remove the mechanical aspects of Traits.


Twigs wrote:

Otherwise we're scrounging up amazing boosts to our initiative or shoring up our saves with little regard to our backstory because there's little incentive to do otherwise...

Yep. Those are the main ones chosen over and over. The initiative boosters, concentration booster, and save boosters. Again and again and again...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that they are a fine way to introduce a mechanical significance to a background element. People who like to come up with character concept first like these, and minmaxer are gonna minmaxing anyway, it's not like a low +1 skill or ST is going to throw the game off balance. If your players come up with contrived reasons to justify why they have that trait just because they like the bonus, it's usually a sign that they will do that for feats, spells and whathaveyou, regardless of the fact that traits are available or not.

Besides, they are optional, so I don't really see the issue.

Removing the mechanical bonuses? Well that's just "describe your character picking from this limited list of features", which is actually worse than not having traits in the first place.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I happen to like traits. One of my favorite things about traits is that you can add a skill to your set of "class skills”.

For example, lets say I wanted to play a Taldan Diplomat, who is a Sorcerer. I look at the class skills...No Diplomacy and no Sense motive.
If I take the traits, World Traveler, and Suspicious, then I have these traits as part of my class skill list.

I look at the description of these traits.... World Traveler...My characters Family has traveled allot. Well I could say that my characters Father was a Diplomat serving at various Taldan Embassies all over the inner sea.

I look at Suspicious...Maybe my character's brother has a problem with Pesh and gambling and he has stolen and lied to my character...too often.... as they were growing up. So my character now takes everything someone says with a grain of salt.

Lets say I wanted to make a character that is a Pathfinder. I think that the Bard character class would make an excellent pathfinder. However I think a Pathfinder would need to be able to survive in the wilderness, and be able to disable traps...neither skill is on the bard's skill list.

I pick half elven for a race, Then I spy the Archeologist Arch type. I'm almost home free.
For traits I pick Vagabond, which will give me access to Disable Device, (I noticed it isn't a class skill for the Arch type) and I noticed that as a half elf I get a free skill focus feat.
I spend my skill focus feat on Survival, and Voila, I have another "class skill".

I also happen to like the Dangerously curious trait.

For background this character initially grew up in the streets of Kaer Maga. He would often use the sewers under the city as a means of getting around. He quickly learnt how to deal with the ancient traps down there. One day my character was hired by a pathfinder to get him to a tomb under Kaer Maga. After successfully doing so, this Pathfinder took my character back to the Grand lodge where he was raised. He was forever getting into what he was told not to, and more often then not it was a magical item that blew up in his face, so he quickly learned how to handle them. He quickly learned how to deal with magical items. His Pathfinder "father would often take him out in the wilderness to learn how to survive.

Perhaps not the most original of backgrounds, but it is a place to start. I used the traits Vagabond, Dangerously curious, and (skill focus) to help craft a background.


Pixel Cube wrote:
Removing the mechanical bonuses? Well that's just "describe your character picking from this limited list of features", which is actually worse than not having traits in the first place.

I did say that those that go into greater depth on the character backgrounds can skip Traits altogether if they don't have mechanical benefits, so there is no "limited list of features" as you describe.


Pixel Cube wrote:

I think that they are a fine way to introduce a mechanical significance to a background element. People who like to come up with character concept first like these, and minmaxer are gonna minmaxing anyway, it's not like a low +1 skill or ST is going to throw the game off balance. If your players come up with contrived reasons to justify why they have that trait just because they like the bonus, it's usually a sign that they will do that for feats, spells and whathaveyou, regardless of the fact that traits are available or not.

Besides, they are optional, so I don't really see the issue.

Removing the mechanical bonuses? Well that's just "describe your character picking from this limited list of features", which is actually worse than not having traits in the first place.

Ofcourse there is great background relevance to a boost in initiative, concentration or save bonus that is taken by nearly every optimizer. It just comes down to a power boost, background additions are rare and ultimately unnecesary

Sczarni

HappyDaze wrote:
Twigs wrote:

Otherwise we're scrounging up amazing boosts to our initiative or shoring up our saves with little regard to our backstory because there's little incentive to do otherwise...

Yep. Those are the main ones chosen over and over. The initiative boosters, concentration booster, and save boosters. Again and again and again...

Maybe try to not use those then? you can ban certain traits without banning the whole mechanic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do what we do in our group, pick one trait for mechanical reasons and pretty much disregard it's flavor and pick one other trait for story/fluff reasons.


The four most common traits I see in use are...

1: Reactionary, or anything else that offers +2 to initiative. My group has a player who takes this trait every single time, and encourages others to do so. Taken at least twice as often as the following two combined. If I ever got rid of any trait in the game, this one would be it.

2: +2 to concentration checks. Partially, this is because the Combat Casting feat bites. In 3.5 the only reason to take it was if it was a bonus or a pre-req for something else. Skill Focus: Concentration had almost the same bonus, but wasn't situational. No players wants to be told he can't do his class schtick over and over again (or even once, really), so this trait sees a lot of use from casters, especially those who plan on casting in combat regularly (as opposed to pre-combat buff casters, who will normally take something else).

3: Anything that provides a bonus to a save or suck spell, especially if it boosts a weak save. Let's face it, being hit by a save-or-suck spell, well, it sucks. I myself hate being transformed from participant into audience. The first one is fun, the second one is not.

4: Next in line are traits that add a class skill, normally chosen to help with a character concept.

However, my own personal opinion is that min/maxing to shore up weaknesses is much more forgivable than min/maxing to push things over the top, so only one trait really draws my ire to any level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I love the traits.

When I need to make a character for a specific role- nothing helps me to generate their history, backstory, and personality than to read through all the traits until one spawns a story for me.

I created a half-orc bard that way, with one of the Religion traits.
I also created a human bard that way from one of the Money traits. (spent the money on frills rather than on better equipment, but wrote a good story from it all).

If your PC's are just using the few that are probably overpowerd just snip them out or halve the bonuses to those few. Or just make them not stack with the feats they mimic..

-S


To me, traits are just more rules creep without really changing what the character can or can't do. It only increases bookkeeping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think they're harmless, but I just ignore the flavour text sometimes and treat them as mini-feats.


Cpt_kirstov wrote:
HappyDaze wrote:
Twigs wrote:

Otherwise we're scrounging up amazing boosts to our initiative or shoring up our saves with little regard to our backstory because there's little incentive to do otherwise...

Yep. Those are the main ones chosen over and over. The initiative boosters, concentration booster, and save boosters. Again and again and again...
Maybe try to not use those then? you can ban certain traits without banning the whole mechanic...

I'd actually rather see the others be brought up to par, personally. As others have said, the bookkeeping was a pain.

For my Runelords game I came up with several (blatantly overpowered) campaign traits, with the power of two (maybe 3) traits. They definately needed some serious toning down, in retrospect, but I was pretty happy with the result.


Love the campaign traits, gives the PCs a reason to follow the plot. Otherwise no free traits, gotta use the feat to pick two.


I really like them as a player because I have always felt that feats and skills alone didn't allow for enough customization.

I GM also, and if the player came to me transparently abusing the traits for desirable mechanics (which is not their stated purpose) I would probably just ban or nerf the offending traits. Just as with feats, if a trait is "so good everyone feels obligated to take it" then it is too good.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I allow my players access to Traits, but one of the traits they take MUST be a Campaign specific trait, in order to tie their character into the plot of the campaign better.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the reason traits "keep showing up" is because campaign traits by their nature will vary from campaign to campaign. So for people who ARE using the trait system, Paizo needs to provide the new campaign traits for their APs. I assume they probably add some into their race books for additional flavor.

I can see how someone who is not interested in them would be annoyed by seeing them show up in books. But fact is, there's something like that for everyone. For example, Prestige Classes are in fact an optional mechanic. They're an option most people take, but they're still optional. And some people hate Prestige Classes. So everytime they show up in a book, they're going to be annoyed by the space they take up. Someone who doesn't like archetypes--also a system that can only be used if your GM allows it--probably hates the first section of the APG, UM, and UC. And so on. In a way, the OP is lucky--traits tend to take up a handful of pages at most.

Now, is the OP the only person who hates traits? Probably not. Do I hate traits? No. I think they are a great way to flesh out a concept without being overpowered--that "arrgh, if only I had Sense Motive as a class skill!" frustration gets fixed by traits. Campaign traits are particularly handy because it's a way to help hook PCs into the story.

I do think some traits are better than others. And as I think a few other folks have noted, one of the problems with coming up with more and more traits is that newer traits get more and more fiddly ("get +4 to Use Magic Device for 3 hours after eating tapioca pudding"). So they should probably keep it to a reasonable minimum to reduce fiddliness, but as the new traits tend to be racial or campaign, it's also plausible to make new traits that aren't too fiddly. The nice thing about traits is that you can have some duplication--so if say you're torn between two Faith Traits, but one of them is the trait that gives you Heal as a class skill, and there's a campaign trait that also gives you Heal as a class skill, then you can still have both.


A player in a campaign that I am in decided to min max and used traits in combination with the familiar and improved init. to get around a +13 to his initiative roll as a level 1.

+2 dex mod
+4 Imp. Init.
+2 Init trait Combat
+2 Init trait Ratial
+3 Familiar
+13 Total

A monk in the group took an initiative trait and the bullied trait which grants him +1 damage on all unarmed strikes/natural attacks.

I am not a fan of traits.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mogart wrote:

A player in a campaign that I am in decided to min max and used traits in combination with the familiar and improved init. to get around a +13 to his initiative roll as a level 1.

+2 dex mod
+4 Imp. Init.
+2 Init trait Combat
+2 Init trait Ratial
+3 Familiar
+13 Total

A monk in the group took an initiative trait and the bullied trait which grants him +1 damage on all unarmed strikes/natural attacks.

I am not a fan of traits.

Erm... So the character gets to go first? That effects one round of combat.

The horror?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mogart wrote:

A player in a campaign that I am in decided to min max and used traits in combination with the familiar and improved init. to get around a +13 to his initiative roll as a level 1.

+2 dex mod
+4 Imp. Init.
+2 Init trait Combat
+2 Init trait Ratial
+3 Familiar
+13 Total

A monk in the group took an initiative trait and the bullied trait which grants him +1 damage on all unarmed strikes/natural attacks.

I am not a fan of traits.

Then he's made a mistake as the two trait modifiers do not stack. They both provide a Trait bonus to Initiative and so cannot be used together. Granted, +11 is still a problem but he's invested heavily into this and +9 would still be tough to deal with, even without traits.


Paul Watson wrote:
Then he's made a mistake as the two trait modifiers do not stack. They both provide a Trait bonus to Initiative and so cannot be used together. Granted, +11 is still a problem but he's invested heavily into this and +9 would still be tough to deal with, even without traits.

Emphasis mine.

Even accounting for what Paul says (that it's not legal), all characters can hyper-specialize. If hyper-specializing in initiative is making players an unstoppable force in your campaign, you might have bigger issues with rocket-tag that need to be addressed. Winning initiative should provide an advantage, but it shouldn't mean auto-winning the fight.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mogart wrote:

A player in a campaign that I am in decided to min max and used traits in combination with the familiar and improved init. to get around a +13 to his initiative roll as a level 1.

+2 dex mod
+4 Imp. Init.
+2 Init trait Combat
+2 Init trait Ratial
+3 Familiar
+13 Total

A monk in the group took an initiative trait and the bullied trait which grants him +1 damage on all unarmed strikes/natural attacks.

I am not a fan of traits.

Erm... So the character gets to go first? That effects one round of combat.

The horror?

The horror is this, he doesn't make the best of decisions, at all. His level 1 character has a 20 int casting stat and a 14 dex, so his init. is high and the DCs for his spells are high as well.

The last time he got to go first, he ended up casting sleep in the center of a 4 person grapple and 2 of us got a coup de grace as he ran away because the bad guys were "too strong." He did this right after the surprise round, and right before the players had a chance to take their first action of the combat. They were helpless and because he min-maxed the save was very high.


Personally, I like the trait system. The group I run and the groups in which I play all use the 1 trait plus 1 campaign trait method.

In one of the groups, the back stories are given to the DM a week before the build. If he doesn't like a trait choice, you re pick based on his suggestions, or you re write your back story. We are lucky in this group, in that everyone likes rich backgrounds, so even "cheeese" comes across as good reasons. :P

But, I still do not see too many of the same choices. (strangely, every one of us bans Heirloom weapons as a trait)

Greg


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mogart wrote:


The horror is this, he doesn't make the best of decisions, at all. His level 1 character has a 20 int casting stat and a 14 dex, so his init. is high and the DCs for his spells are high as well.

The last time he got to go first, he ended up casting sleep in the center of a 4 person grapple and 2 of us got a coup de grace as he ran away because the bad guys were "too strong." He did this right after the surprise round, and right before the players had a chance to take their first action of the combat. They were helpless and because he min-maxed the save was very high.

HAHHAHAHAHAHHA!! nice!

Actually, I don't see that as a problem so much with traits, but mostly with the player. ( unless that is a roleplay style, then he just makes characters that don't play well with others...oh..guess that is still a player issue :P)

Still, a hillarious scenario.

Greg

EDIT: Hillarious when it happens to someone else's group :D, Otherwise, I'd be rather P.O'd.


I think its all in the person using them. The point of traits was to help represent a person's background mechanically. If you pick them for just the bonus you are missing the point.

For me it's important for the mechanics to match a character's characteristics. Traits can be helpful for that sort of thing. For instance, a current character, my magus in a kingmaker game, started off extremely aggressive, and has since run into situations where diplomacy was more useful then violoence or intimidation. So my dm and I worked out a trait to incorporate this (essentially a skill trait for diplomacy).

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Mogart wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mogart wrote:

A player in a campaign that I am in decided to min max and used traits in combination with the familiar and improved init. to get around a +13 to his initiative roll as a level 1.

+2 dex mod
+4 Imp. Init.
+2 Init trait Combat
+2 Init trait Ratial
+3 Familiar
+13 Total

A monk in the group took an initiative trait and the bullied trait which grants him +1 damage on all unarmed strikes/natural attacks.

I am not a fan of traits.

Erm... So the character gets to go first? That effects one round of combat.

The horror?

The horror is this, he doesn't make the best of decisions, at all. His level 1 character has a 20 int casting stat and a 14 dex, so his init. is high and the DCs for his spells are high as well.

To be fair, traits are not going to help or hinder someone's ability to make good decisions. Sounds like you guys need to sit down as a group and have a chat about party tactics.

Second--I hope you read the comments that first, he should only get a +2 to bonus from traits, as they do not stack (if you're not the GM, make sure the GM is aware of this). This guy specialized in initiative, and the final +2 from the traits are not going make that much of a difference one way or the other with all the other bonus.

Third, that your GM allowed a 20 in a stat at first level is an issue that is not the player's fault. Looks like a high powered game, and creating a high powered PC for a high powered game is not a bad idea.

Quote:


The last time he got to go first, he ended up casting sleep in the center of a 4 person grapple and 2 of us got a coup de grace as he ran away because the bad guys were "too strong." He did this right after the surprise round, and right before the players had a chance to take their first action of the combat. They were helpless and because he min-maxed the save was very high.

Is he new to gaming? Did he delight in screwing over fellow party members, or was he mortified that he did that because he didn't realize the consequences?

You have a problem player which has nothing to do with game mechanics--perhaps exacerbated by a GM who's allowed powerful options at character creation and isn't paying close attention to the rules (allowing trait bonuses to stack, for example). Seek out the root of why the player doing what he's doing. If he's just being a jerk, talk it out or give him the boot. If he's making genuine mistakes, then be civil and have a tactics discussion like I suggested earlier--involve everyone and don't single him out, but point out how everyone can work together. A high level wizard going first is actually a GREAT ASSET to a party if they are played well; he may just need to see some examples of how that can work.


Once again, DQ said it nicer than I ever could.

Greg


I love traits, they can frequently (mechanically) be a way to shore up some are in which you are not particular good and want a bit of an extra something for. From a backstory point of view... they are just fine, as long as getting the mechanical bonus has forced the player to think about the backstory and personality as opposed to just playing a pile of efficient numbers as a character I'm happy.

To be fair in my current group there is very little about anyone that is "optimized" so we tend to avoid the "better" traits, and end up with much more flavorful characters than we would have had otherwise. Which is more fun: getting +1 to a save, or playing a prankster rouge who took a magical talent and can now cast the spark spell 1/day? In my group the 2nd option (or something like it) is much more common.


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Ofcourse there is great background relevance to a boost in initiative, concentration or save bonus that is taken by nearly every optimizer. It just comes down to a power boost, background additions are rare and ultimately unnecesary

If the player is an optimizer, it's the system's fault? If a player would rather rollplay than roleplay then let him (or find better group) but I don't see why would you blame traits for something that is clearly a player issue.

And besides, there are methods for dealing with that, as Cult of Vorg or Dudemeister suggested. Want a non-campaign trait? Give up a feat and get two.

Just know what to expect when gaming with minmaxer. They are gonna exploit or flat out abuse the system anyway, milking every possible thing they can get away with, so a measly +1 initiative isn't going to make a difference.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Kolokotroni wrote:

I think its all in the person using them. The point of traits was to help represent a person's background mechanically. If you pick them for just the bonus you are missing the point.

This. I read the trait descriptions, and try to ignore the bonuses until after I've picked them. I sometimes end up with substandard choices, but they always fit the character that I see in my head.

Minmaxers who are more concerned with stats than story will always find a way. (This is not a knock against people who enjoy minmaxing, just an observation). If you find yourself, as a GM, having to reign in palyers like this, there may be a disconnect in your play styles.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

I concur with DeathQuaker -- whether the player's mechanically superior or not isn't the question. He cast a spell and then ran away, and that killed two party members. (And, given that the bad guys didn't fall down, he probably concludes that his save DCs need to be higher.)

Let me note, too, that the game-master (a) let him have this character, (b) with the stacking trait bonuses to initiative, and (c) then decided that the bad guys would coup de grace the beginning characters rather than other alternatives like questioning them, running away ("I t'ink t'at mage t'ere jus' ran off for reinforcements. Let's get outta here!"), or selling them to slavers.

I would have a hard time engaging in this campaign.


For the most part if someone is going to min-max they are going to min-max. Removing this means they'll spend the time doing it with class/race/feat/whatever.

It does encourage people who might not other wise have much of a back story to have some what of one. It won't be great but it's better then nothing.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Mogart wrote:

+2 dex mod
+4 Imp. Init.
+2 Init trait Combat
+2 Init trait Ratial
+3 Familiar
+13 Total

A monk in the group took an initiative trait and the bullied trait which grants him +1 damage on all unarmed strikes/natural attacks.

The familiar is a +2 bonus. And the trait bonus both being trait bonus would not stack with each other. And the Bullied trait is a +1 attack bonus on attacks of opportunity not to all damage rolls.

Two traits are suppose to be about equal to a feat. You might try just giving them a feat outright instead. I doubt you'll meet much resistance to that, and point out they can take additional traits if they still want their traits.

I've personally found they be useful (though I do see an awful lot of +2 initiative as well) for getting the campaign started and trying the the group together with the campaign trait. And I see a lot of character picking up a class skill (that's not normally a class skill) and by and large they run with it their entire adventuring career.

That said I don't hesitate to ban those I think are worth more than a feat. (The adopted, pre-errata heirloom weapon, hedgewizard, and toothy is my personal list.)


Pathfinder PF Special Edition Subscriber
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you'd even keep traits if you're going to eliminate the mechanical aspect of them. Then they're just... descriptions?

I don't use traits, but if I did I would likely remove any game stat aspect of them as well. As you mention, they would then just be descriptions. That is a Role Play bonus for the player then, and not a statistical boon / bane. I have just always found that traits follow the same pattern at the table.

1) The trait is picked based on the numbers.
2) The trait is often forgotten in the RP of the character.
3) If the trait is remembered it is done in an overboard way that is a distraction to the game.

Generally these traits are just not worth the headache they cause at the table.


Maezer wrote:

Two traits are suppose to be about equal to a feat. You might try just giving them a feat outright instead. I doubt you'll meet much resistance to that, and point out they can take additional traits if they still want their traits.

While this is likely more powerful in many cases, at least Feats don't necessarily tie into backstory like Traits are intended to do. IMO, this would actually allow more freedom in developing a character's backstory than using Traits does and would make the min-maxers of the group happy too. I'll consider this.


Maezer wrote:
familiar is a +2 bonus.

Bestiary 2 gave us a dinosaur familiar that gave a +4 initiative bonus. Might have been hit with errata, but it's still +4 in my book.


Kalanth wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
I honestly don't understand why you'd even keep traits if you're going to eliminate the mechanical aspect of them. Then they're just... descriptions?

I don't use traits, but if I did I would likely remove any game stat aspect of them as well. As you mention, they would then just be descriptions. That is a Role Play bonus for the player then, and not a statistical boon / bane. I have just always found that traits follow the same pattern at the table.

1) The trait is picked based on the numbers.
2) The trait is often forgotten in the RP of the character.
3) If the trait is remembered it is done in an overboard way that is a distraction to the game.

Generally these traits are just not worth the headache they cause at the table.

That spells out my experiences with them better than I did. Thank you.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Maezer wrote:
That said I don't hesitate to ban those I think are worth more than a feat. (The adopted, pre-errata heirloom weapon, hedgewizard, and toothy is my personal list.)

You ban Adopted? I think you or your players might be operating under a common misconception - it doesn't allow racial abilities like ferocity or steady, it only allows the character to pick another race's racial traits, like Amazingly Ugly or Clearheaded. It is an unfortunate collision of naming, but there is a difference between race traits (racial special abilities) and racial traits (can pick as one of two traits). Adopted gives the latter.


I like traits because they provide a "carrot" that encourages my players to develop a bit of back story for their character when they otherwise wouldn't.

I dislike traits because they could (if I let them) provide my players something to obsess over getting the "best" of. When first mentioning traits to my group, I almost immediately heard 4 different character stories that involved Rich Parents... so I changed my mind a bit.

Effectively, character creation for one of my (non-adventure path) campaigns involves the player and I writing two new traits (one to give them a motivation to participate actively in the story arc, and one that represents something from their character's life) - I only use the ones in the books as an idea pool for what a trait should be capable of.

Scarab Sages

So this particular thread is mostly for those who dislike traits. It's funny how many ppl whine so much about a game they love to play. It's part of the system, it works for those who use them. Work for Paizo if you want to hold players hostage to your limited points of view.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Nineteen73 wrote:
So this particular thread is mostly for those who dislike traits. It's funny how many ppl whine so much about a game they love to play. It's part of the system, it works for those who use them. Work for Paizo if you want to hold players hostage to your limited points of view.

It's as much a part of the system as achievement feats, words of power, or called shots. Or non-core base classes, for that matter. They're all non-core material, options that some GMs choose to include, but not others.

You can call it "whining" if you want, Nineteen73. But I don't think the only way to play the game is to abandon all sense of discernment.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Am I alone in not liking Traits? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.