I've been running Pathfinder on and off since Beta. One of the many changes that I enjoyed was the addition of traits. Traits allowed for flavor to be added to the character, while at the same time giving the player a 'hook' for some background information.
Some of my players absolutely hated doing character backgrounds, but giving them the benefit of traits caused them to write some very decent and involved character histories! It was wonderful!
Now I'm noticing that most of the players are taking the same traits over and over again for different characters. Reactionary, Magical Knack, Heirloom Weapon...etc. The character histories are rather short and only serve to explain how the character got the traits.
Here's the problem: What do I do about it? Should I just ban traits completely (starting with the next campaign of course)? Or maybe restrict them in some way?
Any advice from the Pathfinder community would be appreciated :)
This does get to be a problem. Maybe ahve them try new good traits. What sources of traits are you allowing in your game. Maybe they do not like the traits they do not want. Maybe have them look through new traits in a player companion? Although hieloom does seem to do that.
last time we made chars out of 4 PC's 3 took the +2 init and 2 took magical knack. {sigh} We got a few to change.
I was considering a couple of things:
1) No one can pick the same trait as someone else.
and/or
2) Can't pick the same trait as your previous character.
I don't really like either of these. But just asking them to branch out didn't seem to accomplish much.
|
I agree, it's not really that big a deal, I don't think, and there really are not that many traits. Most of them do the exact same thing, just a different name.
It's okay for the players to want to either shore up a weakness, or be allowed to do something just a little outside of what they could normally do. It's always been pretty stupid to not be able to start with a perfered weapon (due to BaB or whatever), especially if the player really wants to keep that weapon for their career, for example. Heirloom Weapon is one of the only ways around that.
Reaper Miniatures
|
It sounds as if your players have found traits that grant them specific benefits that they figure they always want - Heirloom Weapon, for example. Rather than playing a different character, they are simply playing a different piece of paper with the same mechanical benefits that they have already learned they like.
What can you really do? Well, you could ask them why their last X characters all had the same 2 traits. If they say it's becuase they really like the benefits, you could offer to throw in the trait they like (Heirloom Weapon) for free if they will use thier other 2 traits for something unique, and toss in a unique background story. Tell them you are tired of seeing the repetition, and would really like to some effort in characterization, for which you will grant them the mechanical reward for free. Win-Win.
Be honest, talk to them. Explain that you wanted traits because of the RP and backstory they encouraged, and you feel like they are viewed now as a tool to get free stuff. You shouldn't ban traits, but instead should look for other ways to encourage your Players to view the game as something beyond a mathematical challenge to be overcome, but rather a story-telling platform.
Perhaps you need to find other incentives for backstories and trait variations - like free XP, free gold, free items, free pizza.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe restrict them in some way?
I usually find that the Campaign traits from the various adventure paths are more interesting for flavour than the generic ones in various rule books. Maybe you could require a minimum of one Campaign trait (where you would create the list of Campaign traits, if it's a homebrew game).
last time we made chars out of 4 PC's 3 took the +2 init and 2 took magical knack. {sigh} We got a few to change.
I was considering a couple of things:
1) No one can pick the same trait as someone else.
and/or
2) Can't pick the same trait as your previous character.I don't really like either of these. But just asking them to branch out didn't seem to accomplish much.
Just ban traits if you are going to be heavy-handed about it. Rather be strict and to the point rather than arbitrary and confusing (that's how we got in this mess in the first place).
As long as there is no intention to make everything equally worthwhile and characters can pick traits, most everyone will pick the same ones.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I do Traits is ask my players to write one page of backstory for their characters, and assign Traits based on that. If I see everybody write about having their granddaddy's Hierloom Weapons (not gonna happen soon due to the nerf) or being very very you know, reactionary about things, I give them The Stare.
It's a win-win setup - I get their histories to run things off of, and they get some small perks for their work.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The obvious solution would be to rebalance the traits so that one or two of them aren't obviously ten times more advantageous than the other ones. But then people will start screaming about (a) "theorycraft" being "badwrongfun;" (b) 4e; and/or (c) society play, so I'd better not even suggest that.
Some triats just plain suck compared to the other ones is also a problem. I want to use the linbreaker trait from the inner sea primer more charge distance can be nice.
... Heirloom Weapon...
Anyone remember wher this is?
i'm not finding it in the PRD.
Really I find those two traits to be worthless.
Added a simply rule that any skill can become a class skill with the + 1 trait bonus, and it really opens up the character options. Can you really outdo the fighter getting a + 4 perception bonus at level 1.
The obvious solution would be to rebalance the traits so that one or two of them aren't obviously ten times more advantageous than the other ones.
Without knowing anything about a particular PC, which is obviously ten times more advantageous: a +1 to initiative, or a +1 to Fort saves? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without knowing anything about a particular PC, which is obviously ten times more advantageous: a +1 to initiative, or a +1 to Fort saves? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.
A: They're both better than "+1 to Acrobatics saves to avoid slipping on the wet deck of a ship once per day" or any of those.
Without knowing anything about a particular PC, which is obviously ten times more advantageous: a +1 to initiative, or a +1 to Fort saves? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.
Well, in my group. Almost everyone believes the +2 to initiative is substantially better than every else. Except for the spell casters who are multiclassing or PrC'ing and want magical knack.
So your players have found what they enjoy so now you're going to ban it? I totally don't understand.
That's why I said I don't like any of those options i mentioned.
In one group, I have 2 players that the last 3 chars they made that, even though they pick different races and clases, have been virtually identical in build and play style. I'm finding it boring to GM for the exact same party each time.
I don't like dictating to them but I would really like some variety.
Thankfully, one guy has finally agreed to try a cleric.
+2 to initiative is a good one, but I would hardly take it all the time. Heirloom Weapon was decent, but far from great, in it's original form; in it's new form, it barely tolerable. I personally think weapon proficiencies is one of the things that needs fixing, and the original one did a decent job of doing so. The new form is a waste of time for the vast majority of builds, at best ranking with the "+1 to Acrobatics saves to avoid slipping on the wet deck of a ship once per day" traits.
If you don't think they are providing enough backstory, tell them you need more or you will drop traits. Having traits common to multiple characters is fine as long as they take the time to explain how it relates to each character.
I must simply be crazy I do not think I have taken the + 2 initiative one on a single character.
I never liked traits as a reason to supply a character with his background. Background and personality should come from the player's imagination, not from some mechanic with limited options.
I like traits in the sense that they're half feats. I wish there were several feats that were traits instead, because that's the only way a lot of them would be worth picking.
So yes, I'd throw away the free traits on character startup, there's no point imo. Almost everyone will just powergame them anyway. How many reactionary characters can you get before the whole thing becomes a joke?
+2 to initiative is a good one, but I would hardly take it all the time. Heirloom Weapon was decent, but far from great, in it's original form; in it's new form, it barely tolerable. I personally think weapon proficiencies is one of the things that needs fixing, and the original one did a decent job of doing so. The new form is a waste of time for the vast majority of builds, at best ranking with the "+1 to Acrobatics saves to avoid slipping on the wet deck of a ship once per day" traits.
I agree. Heirloom was crazy overpowered, but apparently to counterbalance it, they sucked all the life out of it. I mean, no one could come up with a midpoint between "best thing ever" and "practically useless?" What about "You gain proficiency in a chosen weapon that gains the masterwork quality for free but you must purchase the non-masterwork weapon as normal."
You get a free masterwork but not a free weapon. Good? Yes. All powerful? Not so much.Maybe even limit it so that it is only masterwork for the person with the trait but may be enhanced by anyone as if a masterwork weapon. That prevents early sell offs to buy better stuff.
+2 to initiative is a good one, but I would hardly take it all the time. Heirloom Weapon was decent, but far from great, in it's original form; in it's new form, it barely tolerable. I personally think weapon proficiencies is one of the things that needs fixing, and the original one did a decent job of doing so. The new form is a waste of time for the vast majority of builds, at best ranking with the "+1 to Acrobatics saves to avoid slipping on the wet deck of a ship once per day" traits.I agree. Heirloom was crazy overpowered, but apparently to counterbalance it, they sucked all the life out of it. I mean, no one could come up with a midpoint between "best thing ever" and "practically useless?" What about "You gain proficiency in a chosen weapon that gains the masterwork quality for free but you must purchase the non-masterwork weapon as normal."
You get a free masterwork but not a free weapon. Good? Yes. All powerful? Not so much.
Maybe even limit it so that it is only masterwork for the person with the trait but may be enhanced by anyone as if a masterwork weapon. That prevents early sell offs to buy better stuff.
Precisely, Heirloom Weapon needed fixing, but simply removing the +1 trait bonus, and making it a sample campaign trait would have been more than enough. It would have removed the main mechanical complaint, and DMs and players alike would have understood that this was a trait that required a significant effort in exchange for the goodies.
|
Heirloom weapon was flat-out stupid in original form. Weapon focus, a free expensive weapon, and potential exotic weapon proficiency. Yes, people whine that one weapon is all you get so it's OK, but how many people don't just upgrade 1 weapon over career anyway?
Even the new version is highly useable for multiple reasons. For manuever experts +2 to a specific maneuver is huge (trip + horsechopper on my whirlwind trip polearm fightsr). For my cleric of Iomedea that wants to shoot a bow it's weapon proficiency. So it's still very good, just not "better than a feat, everyone take".
But I digress; they are viewed as 2 1/2 feats, and why not let that fly? Magical Knack is necessary to make multi decent; the others are nice little bonuses. You can build your backstory with them in mind, or just take the bonus and not build it around those.
|
|
Heirloom Weapon was decent, but far from great, in it's original form; in it's new form, it barely tolerable.
What does the new "fix" actually do? I never bother to check, and now I can't. Would you mind a quick breakdown. People raved about it being overly broken, but it wasn't bad really. More that many other Traits are less decent.
In all honestly, I think this was a perfect example of what Traits should be like, allowing a starting character the ability to do something they normally can't otherwise, from the begining, useful for the career (1st - 20th), and helped avoid multiclassing or waiting until later levels for something fairly simple.
Without knowing anything about a particular PC, which is obviously ten times more advantageous: a +1 to initiative, or a +1 to Fort saves? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.A: They're both better than "+1 to Acrobatics saves to avoid slipping on the wet deck of a ship once per day" or any of those.
Touche. :-)
But my point is that there are people out there who would rabidly prefer one or the other even if one isn't clearly better than the other. So rebalancing (which is a good thing in some cases, I agree) won't necessarily fix a lack of variation.
Heirloom Weapon was decent, but far from great, in it's original form; in it's new form, it barely tolerable.What does the new "fix" actually do? I never bother to check, and now I can't. Would you mind a quick breakdown. People raved about it being overly broken, but it wasn't bad really. More that many other Traits are less decent.
In all honestly, I think this was a perfect example of what Traits should be like, allowing a starting character the ability to do something they normally can't otherwise, from the begining, useful for the career (1st - 20th), and helped avoid multiclassing or waiting until later levels for something fairly simple.
Now:
Pick a weapon. You gain ONE of the following(A) Proficiency
(B) +1 Trait bonus to attacks with that specific weapon
(C) +2 trait bonus to a SINGLE combat maneuver with that SPECIFIC weapon
Also: You must buy the weapon.
Previously:
Get a -300gp masterwork weapon you automatically gain proficiency with. You also get a +1 trait bonus to attacks with it.
Heirloom weapon was flat-out stupid in original form. Weapon focus, a free expensive weapon, and potential exotic weapon proficiency. Yes, people whine that one weapon is all you get so it's OK, but how many people don't just upgrade 1 weapon over career anyway?
People who have downtime and can get their already enchanted/masterwork weapon enchanted/upgraded.
Even the new version is highly useable for multiple reasons. For manuever experts +2 to a specific maneuver is huge (trip + horsechopper on my whirlwind trip polearm fightsr).
Getting this for the +2 trait bonus to combat maneuvers for a combat maneuver fighter is actually the only thing it is good for.
For my cleric of Iomedea that wants to shoot a bow it's weapon proficiency. So it's still very good, just not "better than a feat, everyone take".
It is better than a feat. You get a free proficiency for a weapon you don't have without a BAB pre-req. That's equal to up to better than a feat.
Or you get free weapon focus that stacks with weapon focus.
The fluff behind it was rent asunder when it was nerfed so there is really no reason for it to exist. You no longer get a weapon that is an heirloom, you are just better with a certain weapon in some odd way.
Hell, even making it so you can get a masterwork weapon upgrade WITHOUT free proficiency would have been a more interesting fix - just because it is your granddad's army sword doesn't mean you have any idea how to use it unless you are trained with swords.
Without knowing anything about a particular PC, which is obviously ten times more advantageous: a +1 to initiative, or a +1 to Fort saves? Answers on the back of a postcard, please.A: They're both better than "+1 to Acrobatics saves to avoid slipping on the wet deck of a ship once per day" or any of those.Touche. :-)
But my point is that there are people out there who would rabidly prefer one or the other even if one isn't clearly better than the other. So rebalancing (which is a good thing in some cases, I agree) won't necessarily fix a lack of variation.
So lets take that trait in context of a ocean campaign. I assume the feat really reads you get a + 1 trait bonus and the skill becomes a class skill. So if you spent one point on the acrobatics skill you get a feat that is better than skill focus until level 10. That fighter did go first but know he is prone while the enemy moved across the deck and is now attack the prone fighter. I see that as a great trait. If anything simply use the traits as the DM to make the players see how great they can be if used in the right way.
So we're in agreement it is situationally better than a feat, and there are multiple characters that take it even after the nerf. This says it was correctly balanced; people were implying it was terrible now :).
Comparatively it is terrible, and not in line with the fluff.
|
|
Heirloom Weapon was decent, but far from great, in it's original form; in it's new form, it barely tolerable.What does the new "fix" actually do? I never bother to check, and now I can't. Would you mind a quick breakdown. People raved about it being overly broken, but it wasn't bad really. More that many other Traits are less decent.
In all honestly, I think this was a perfect example of what Traits should be like, allowing a starting character the ability to do something they normally can't otherwise, from the begining, useful for the career (1st - 20th), and helped avoid multiclassing or waiting until later levels for something fairly simple.
Now:
Pick a weapon. You gain ONE of the following
(A) Proficiency
(B) +1 Trait bonus to attacks with that specific weapon
(C) +2 trait bonus to a SINGLE combat maneuver with that SPECIFIC weapon
Also: You must buy the weapon.Previously:
Get a -300gp masterwork weapon you automatically gain proficiency with. You also get a +1 trait bonus to attacks with it.
Thanks. That's really not too bad, I think. In a way, I might even like that one better, as it's even more customizable for different characters. With the Exception that it (may) also mean that a player can't actually start with said weapon, (or is it like above, you buy the normal weapon, but Masterwork aspect is free?).
Heirloom weapon was flat-out stupid in original form. Weapon focus, a free expensive weapon, and potential exotic weapon proficiency. Yes, people whine that one weapon is all you get so it's OK, but how many people don't just upgrade 1 weapon over career anyway?
Even the new version is highly useable for multiple reasons. For manuever experts +2 to a specific maneuver is huge (trip + horsechopper on my whirlwind trip polearm fightsr). For my cleric of Iomedea that wants to shoot a bow it's weapon proficiency. So it's still very good, just not "better than a feat, everyone take".
But I digress; they are viewed as 2 1/2 feats, and why not let that fly? Magical Knack is necessary to make multi decent; the others are nice little bonuses. You can build your backstory with them in mind, or just take the bonus and not build it around those.
The weapon focus part was over the top, but the rest was perfectly in line with your typical campaign trait, which tended to be more powerful than the typical trait. If it had be relabeled as such, and the +1 trait bonus removed, it would have been fine. I do like the choose one of three options, but taking away both free masterwork and exotic access was overkill. Now, the weapon proficiency for a single weapon, not even weapon type, is not worth it by itself for a weapon you could have bought anyway, and while it is good for builds that utilize combat maneuvers, for everyone else, it's not really worth the trouble in most cases.
Or, why not let the player reuse their prior character from the last game? If they keep picking the same options, maybe they'd simply like to start over with the same character.
Cheers
The problem with this is that most players generally like to play the same type of character, but not the same character. All casters will benefit from the magic traits to a certain degree, for example, but that doesn't mean every caster is the same, and most players will end up having a favorite they just like as players. I always make a conscious effort to make different characters from what I've made in the past, and I have a list of 2 or 3 that I always consider just because I like the flavor and benefit of them. I don't always pick them, but you can't expect players to completely ignore ones they've used in the past. As long as the fluff is reskinned appropriately, it not a problem, or if it is, it's not with the trait, it's with the DM thinking the player needs to try a different kind of character entirely, which may or may not be valid.
I've been running Pathfinder on and off since Beta. One of the many changes that I enjoyed was the addition of traits. Traits allowed for flavor to be added to the character, while at the same time giving the player a 'hook' for some background information.
Some of my players absolutely hated doing character backgrounds, but giving them the benefit of traits caused them to write some very decent and involved character histories! It was wonderful!
Now I'm noticing that most of the players are taking the same traits over and over again for different characters. Reactionary, Magical Knack, Heirloom Weapon...etc. The character histories are rather short and only serve to explain how the character got the traits.
Here's the problem: What do I do about it? Should I just ban traits completely (starting with the next campaign of course)? Or maybe restrict them in some way?
Any advice from the Pathfinder community would be appreciated :)
So if your players took the Weapon Focus feat 90% of the time you would consider banning the feat? Would you ban the spell Magic Missile because every arcane caster takes it? Banning traits because they are mechanically good for every character makes just as much sense.
If you want Histories, ask your players to write histories. Unlink them from the trait and feat selection.
|
|
If you want Histories, ask your players to write histories. Unlink them from the trait and feat selection.
Practical experience shows that:
1.
DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs?
Players: mmmmrmmblleekay
3 months later
DM: Hey guys, about those backstories I asked for...
Players: Hey look, a flying monkey!
DM: ...
2.
DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs? Everyone who turns in a backstory will get 2 traits based on it.
Players: *SCRAMBLE*
DM: Joy!
Sticks and carrots, sticks and carrots.
If you want Histories, ask your players to write histories. Unlink them from the trait and feat selection.
Practical experience shows that:
1.
DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs?
Players: mmmmrmmblleekay3 months later
DM: Hey guys, about those backstories I asked for...
Players: Hey look, a flying monkey!
DM: ...2.
DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs? Everyone who turns in a backstory will get 2 traits based on it.
Players: *SCRAMBLE*
DM: Joy!Sticks and carrots, sticks and carrots.
How much are you asking for? I don't see how asking for 3 decent paragraphs, one for where their past, one for their recent past and current personality/activities as the campaign starts, and one for future goals, is too much. Put one to two key points in each paragraph, and both the DM and the player have a better understanding of the character. If you are using traits, require them to work the traits into that just as you would any other mechanical choice.
|
I've been running Pathfinder on and off since Beta. One of the many changes that I enjoyed was the addition of traits. Traits allowed for flavor to be added to the character, while at the same time giving the player a 'hook' for some background information.
Some of my players absolutely hated doing character backgrounds, but giving them the benefit of traits caused them to write some very decent and involved character histories! It was wonderful!
Now I'm noticing that most of the players are taking the same traits over and over again for different characters. Reactionary, Magical Knack, Heirloom Weapon...etc. The character histories are rather short and only serve to explain how the character got the traits.
Here's the problem: What do I do about it? Should I just ban traits completely (starting with the next campaign of course)? Or maybe restrict them in some way?
Any advice from the Pathfinder community would be appreciated :)
This is what I would do. Allow them to select one trait from the general lists. If they want to always pick the same ones, fine.
Here's where the trick comes in, and it will require a little more work from you, but have them write the histories for their characters and give them their Campaign trait based on that. If they come up with something bland and boring, they get a weak/bland trait, if they come up with something awesome, work at make a better, interesting trait.
It will allow you to have reciprocation. The more work they put in, the more work you are willing to put in.
Just my opinion, and something I should have done with my campaign.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Tinalles! Yeah, what she (or he, hard to tell just by the name) said, but you can MAKE UP TRAITS too...
If you want Histories, ask your players to write histories. Unlink them from the trait and feat selection.
Practical experience shows that:
1.
DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs?
Players: mmmmrmmblleekay3 months later
DM: Hey guys, about those backstories I asked for...
Players: Hey look, a flying monkey!
DM: ...2.
DM: Hey guys, one more thing, could you write me short backstories of your PCs? Everyone who turns in a backstory will get 2 traits based on it.
Players: *SCRAMBLE*
DM: Joy!Sticks and carrots, sticks and carrots.
While I understand where you are coming from, when I ask for histories all I want is a couple sentences that I can draw plot hooks from, my players know that, and they also don't play unless I have thier backstory done and in my hands before first session of the campaign. I treat it just like their chr sheet: I have to read and approve before you can play.
I've always used tactics similar to Gorbacz for my traits. With the added step of a campaign trait, and some pre-background info on what the campaign themes and hook will be. That way they get an appropriate campaign trait, and I pick something fitting for the other trait.
Of course, I suppose my more rules adept players could always put the heirloom weapon into a backstory, knowing that it would be the most appropriate pick for me, but that hasn't happened yet.
Honestly, it comes down to the type of player, and in my group even the most number-crunchy players will happily under-optimize for a roleplaying hook.
Just throwing out there that I tend to personally keep picking the traits that have static bonuses. Anything that doesn't simply change a number is just another line-item on the invoice.
+1 to confirm crits? Mechanically nice but it's conditional. +1 to damage versus undead? Mechanically nice but it's conditional.
I'm senile.
Also, I'm senile.
That said, because I happen to be senile, for sake of rapid game-play I avoid as many conditional abilities as I can. Sure, I'll take Mobility if the build calls for it, and sure I'll play Rangers with favored enemy, but it's too much to remember the DCs for my [Cold] spells is one higher for the three nights a month the moon is absent from the sky or some such.
1) Redefine the list of traits you allow. Make them more or less balanced.
2) Give players the list. Tell the players that no trait (giving the same bonus to the same skill or game effect) may be taken by more than one player.
3) Tell each player that in order to get a single trait, they have to write a three paragraph introduction. To get the second trait, they also have to define three NPCs who are linked to them - two like them, one dislikes them.
4) Remove identifying information from the introduction. Print them out. Give each player a copy of someone else's character. Have that person pick one trait from the community pool, and justify it from the character's background. (I like writing the available traits out on index cards for this.)
5) Move on to the next player. Repeat until all available traits are assigned.
Heirloom Weapon was decent, but far from great, in it's original form; in it's new form, it barely tolerable.What does the new "fix" actually do? I never bother to check, and now I can't. Would you mind a quick breakdown. People raved about it being overly broken, but it wasn't bad really. More that many other Traits are less decent.
In all honestly, I think this was a perfect example of what Traits should be like, allowing a starting character the ability to do something they normally can't otherwise, from the begining, useful for the career (1st - 20th), and helped avoid multiclassing or waiting until later levels for something fairly simple.
Now:
Pick a weapon. You gain ONE of the following
(A) Proficiency
(B) +1 Trait bonus to attacks with that specific weapon
(C) +2 trait bonus to a SINGLE combat maneuver with that SPECIFIC weapon
Also: You must buy the weapon.Previously:
Get a -300gp masterwork weapon you automatically gain proficiency with. You also get a +1 trait bonus to attacks with it.
That still seems like a powerful trait to me. For example:
A) If you can take proficiency with Exotic Weapons, then that alone is worth a feat (a weak feat, but a feat nevertheless).
B) If you know you're going to be sticking with a weapon (I.E., a Bladebound Magus), that's a pretty good choice.
C) I haven't read the trait's description, but if you can pick Unarmed Strike for C (considering that unarmed strikes are considered weapons), then that's incredible for the Monk. I wouldn't even call it outlandish, because you could fluff it as an "heirloom fighting style" or something that is passed down through your clan / monastary / etc.
|
|
That still seems like a powerful trait to me. For example:
A) If you can take proficiency with Exotic Weapons, then that alone is worth a feat (a weak feat, but a feat nevertheless).
B) If you know you're going to be sticking with a weapon (I.E., a Bladebound Magus), that's a pretty good choice.
C) I haven't read the trait's description, but if you can pick Unarmed Strike for C (considering that unarmed strikes are considered weapons), then that's incredible for the Monk. I wouldn't even call it outlandish, because you could fluff it as an "heirloom fighting style" or something that is passed down through your clan / monastary / etc.
A.) You only get Prof with that specific weapon. Not that type of weapon, that specific one. Your father's Longsword, not all Longswords.
B.) +1 to hit, again with only 1 single weapon. not bad, but not OP
C.) Has to be an actual item. No Unarmed Strikes. Furthermore, the item has to be one you can actually use for said Combat Manuver.
4) Remove identifying information from the introduction. Print them out. Give each player a copy of someone else's character. Have that person pick one trait from the community pool, and justify it from the character's background. (I like writing the available traits out on index cards for this.)
5) Move on to the next player. Repeat until all available traits are assigned.
Hm, interesting. I can't say it would work for every table of players, but a "peer review" process to establish traits could be very interesting.
What we've done is established character backstories first, then looked over traits (as GM and player together) to see what matches to the character--very similar to what Gorbacz suggested (except without a write-up.) So far, no temptation for abuse and although there's a mechanical benefit involved, it really hasn't influenced any decisions except where the mechanical benefit clearly indicates that our understanding of the fluff text was wrong, so the trait is actually inappropriate and discarded in favor of another.
Another potential idea for GMs -- again, depending on the players -- is that if players are having trouble coming up with a backstory, details might be spurred with some random traits. Consider making a table, rolling up a couple of traits and, assuming they're not contradictory (poverty-stricken versus rich parents, for example), see what background erupts out of them.
It's good that there's a mechanical benefit to traits; people would have complained that they were fluff taking up important room in books if not. But the maximum benefit comes when players and GMs use them as I see their intention: fleshing out characters.