Other people's suggestions that I like:
- You give out the traits based on background (I wouldn't do it myself honestly, but it's an interesting idea)
- Require one of the traits to be a campaign trait (which tend to be more story oriented)
- Random trait generation and then write backstory
My suggestions:
- Require one trait to be skill-based
- If someone does take a trait that seems "useless"--make sure they get something out of it. If someone takes the +1 to Acrobatics when traversing a slippery deck trait, then put them on a boat in the rain at some point. This is an exaggerated example for illustration's sake, but what I'm getting at is that if all traits prove to be useful, the more obvious ones may stop looking as "necessary." If someone takes something that lets them have a new class skill, make sure they get to use that skill. Your players appear to be motivated by making sure what they're allowed to take can be useful, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
- But also roleplay up their traits. If someone takes "bully" have some people treat him with fear--but also with hatred, as he's a known aggressor. If someone takes magical knack, have their wizard master give them extra attention--both praise and maybe some extra work to do--because he knows the PC is so good with magic. If for you, traits exist for more than a mechanical reason, you need to play it out.
|
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.
Kirth. I like the way you think.
I wish they'd take this approach with Traits.
And Feats.
And Spells.
And Rogue Talents.
And Classes overall.
And Races.
And Favored Class benefits.
And ........
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.
Sticks and Carrots. Absolutely.
Here's an alternative that I've used. I dont tie these things to traits, but I've tied them to other stuff.
I tend to use 500gp as level 1 starting gold (I'm generous). I scale back the WBL so at level 2 theyre still near the guidelines.
So I tell the players they get like, 200 gold for starting gear.
if they provide a backstory they get another 300. Sticks and Carrots. And its a big benefit, so you want to write the damn backstory. lol.
For higher level characters using WBL, I have to come up with a different stick/carrot.
I no longer use combat experience. I've moved to experience models based on other RPGs. so X for attending the session, and X for doing each thing on a checklist, and X for writing a character journal on our online web forum. But I'm okay with the characters who aren't paying attention at game or who dont write a character journal to gradually fall behind.
Sticks and Carrots. Always.
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.Kirth. I like the way you think.
I wish they'd take this approach with Traits.
And Feats.
And Spells.
And Rogue Talents.
And Classes overall.
And Races.
And Favored Class benefits.
And ........
Balance the game?! Madness! Then there wouldn't be certain things people chose simply for flavor instead of being mechanically viable choices! You'd suck all the life out of the game by making any option A as viable as option B!
Option B just gives a +1 on attacks of opportunity though...
My 2 cent:
Traits are bite sized half feats, which is nice especially since you can get some by the additional traits feat. Some of the more popular choices give you something you cant get easily otherwise or is quite expensive:
Magical Knack and Magical Lineage: There is no Practised Spellcaster (sp?) feat in Parthinder giving you double the bonus of Magical Knack(yet). So if you want to multiclass it´s your only choice to counter this. The same goes for Magical Lineage, there is no feat that lets you specialize on one or 2 spells.
Of course some traits are just plain bad, exchanging your trait for money may not be unlike getting crafting feats - but 900 GP is a little cheap unless your game never goes above level 4.
At present I see no problem with some traits beeing more popular and others are never taken, some traits could use a little boost though.
That said, my next character will take Heirloom Weapon and Magical Lineage (Shocking Grasp) (a stenght based magus) other traits were nice too, but I wanted to use spellstrike a lot^^
One idea I haven't seen suggested yet:
Make a list of the traits you think are head-and-shoulders above the rest; these traits are only available by choosing the Extra Traits feat.
There you've got a balance of "they're still available if you REALLY want that mechanical benefit" and "everyone won't pick the same starting traits, because not everyone wants to burn a feat on that."
One idea I haven't seen suggested yet:
Make a list of the traits you think are head-and-shoulders above the rest; these traits are only available by choosing the Extra Traits feat.
There you've got a balance of "they're still available if you REALLY want that mechanical benefit" and "everyone won't pick the same starting traits, because not everyone wants to burn a feat on that."
That would only work if the traits are significantly better than a feat itself, since players are using a feat slot to gain two traits, when they would have gotten two traits without the feat being used. Unless you're saying the players can have two normal traits <i>and</i> the two great traits if they use the Extra Traits feat...
|
If you want to keep certain traits from being chosen each and every time, here are some ideas:
1. Enforce the one-trait-per-list rule. No taking Magical Knack AND Magical Lineage, for example. Even if you take the Additional Traits feat.
2. Make it one-trait-per-party, and hold an auction. Only one person gets Reactionary, for example. So if three out of four PCs show up with Reactionary, let them bid for it, giving up their other trait, or starting gold, or ability score points. Chances are all but one will simply decide they don't want the trait in the first place, or they'll work together to divvy up the favorite traits.
3. Make it one-trait-per-party, and draft traits. Maybe give all PCs four trait drafts, and let them wheel and deal for the traits. Once you have what you have, then you can build your PC backstory.
No more will you have a whole party of people who were beat up a lot for taking care of the family falcata.
Unless you're saying the players can have two normal traits <i>and</i> the two great traits if they use the Extra Traits feat...
Yes, that is what I am saying.
If you want to keep certain traits from being chosen each and every time, here are some ideas:
2. Make it one-trait-per-party, and hold an auction. Only one person gets Reactionary, for example. So if three out of four PCs show up with Reactionary, let them bid for it, giving up their other trait, or starting gold, or ability score points. Chances are all but one will simply decide they don't want the trait in the first place, or they'll work together to divvy up the favorite traits.
3. Make it one-trait-per-party, and draft traits. Maybe give all PCs four trait drafts, and let them wheel and deal for the traits. Once you have what you have, then you can build your PC backstory.
No more will you have a whole party of people who were beat up a lot for taking care of the family falcata.
Really? Would you do that for Weapon Focus? For Magic Missile? For Cure Light Wounds? Then why would you do it for traits?
|
|
If you want to keep certain traits from being chosen each and every time, here are some ideas:
2. Make it one-trait-per-party, and hold an auction. Only one person gets Reactionary, for example. So if three out of four PCs show up with Reactionary, let them bid for it, giving up their other trait, or starting gold, or ability score points. Chances are all but one will simply decide they don't want the trait in the first place, or they'll work together to divvy up the favorite traits.
3. Make it one-trait-per-party, and draft traits. Maybe give all PCs four trait drafts, and let them wheel and deal for the traits. Once you have what you have, then you can build your PC backstory.
No more will you have a whole party of people who were beat up a lot for taking care of the family falcata.
Really? Would you do that for Weapon Focus? For Magic Missile? For Cure Light Wounds? Then why would you do it for traits?
First off, note the caveat: "If you want certain traits from being chosen each and every time..."
Second, sure, why not? How often do you have a party where all PCs grab Weapon Focus? Cure Light Wounds? Magic Missile? How often instead do you have one PC with Weapon Focus, one with Magic Missile, and one with Cure Light?
Really? Would you do that for Weapon Focus? For Magic Missile? For Cure Light Wounds? Then why would you do it for traits?
Traits are supposed to represent something inimical to your character, often events beyond their control--the wealth level of your family, what neighborhood you grew up in, whether you were picked on as a child, which region of the world you were born in, whether or not one of your ancestors left behind a special weapon, etc., whereas most feats, skills, spells, etc. represent abilities your character has focused and trained on using -- something they control.
If Magic Missils is a great spell to have, it makes sense that most wizards might pick it. But most wizards aren't going to have somehow chosen to be picked on as a child in order to give them a better initiative later on. If a player comes up with a great story reason why, inspired by this heirloom weapon, they set themselves out to be a great warrior or, tired of being bullied as a child, they turned to magic to make sure that never happened, great. But at creation they certainly can't turn back time and change things up.
Now this is totally an interpretive viewpoint and not RAW or even RAI, but there's plenty of logical reason why characters could choose to take skills and abilities that they themselves learned that everyone else has, but that they can't choose their background -- the events that shape us as people are most often not of our own choosing.
To put it another way, in the GM's world, it might make perfect sense that every wizard knows magic missile and every cleric (not from some religion where healing is anathema) has cure light wounds, every fighter has weapon focus in their chosen implement of war and every thief has... whatever it is thieves would take as an analogy. These are base abilities that help to define their professions. But would it make sense for most of the adventurers in the world are reactionary magical prodigies with special inherited weapons?
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.
See I disagree. Traits aren't just for fluffing out your character. There are mechanical benefits to the players character. If not there would not be a feat you can take to gain 2 new traits. Why would you need to take a feat to gain fluff? It makes no sense.
Why is there this knee jerk reaction to min/max. This concept that if someone is a min/max er that he can not then be a good role-player. It seems to all stem from that one guy that always wants to play the fighter, with the same name, attitude, and alignment no matter what game he plays, but thinks that because his character under performs compared to the rest of the group that they are all min/max ers who are corrupting the sanctity of his game. He after all should be the mighty fighter everyone stands behind and if that doesn't happen then they aren't "role" playing their character.
Its BS. Usually the guys Ive played with that complain about min maxing are the guys that play the SAME character every game. I and a few other min maxing friends of mine usually play very different characters each game with different backgrounds, attitudes, and goals. We just tend to make a character and then build a back-story around it instead of the other way around.
Sorry if I started to rant. Here is what I'm trying to say.
1. Traits are for more then fluff and should be up to the player.
2. DMs should control the number of traits but not what is picked.
3. Min/Max and RP are not on a scale. You can do both.
4. A poorly planned out character does not make for a good RP character. It just means your not a help to your party.
I am quite surprised no one has mentioned armor expert yet. That one trait can be equivalent to getting a +1 on multiple skills.
The name of a trait and the mechanical benefit are only loosely connected in my opinion. I can write the backstory I want, and take the traits for the mechanical benefits that I want, and there's no problem for my DM (I like to reflavor things often, and so do the people I play with). Consider the Princess benefit, of Diplomacy as class and +1 Diplomacy/Intimidate. A handy trait if you want your character to be social. Is being a princess really the only way to get these benefits? What if my character was raised on the streets, and he had to learn when to bootlick and when to make threats under less privileged circumstances? Do I have to make him female, and born a princess to take that trait? I think not.
Let them get the mechanical benefit they want, and don't force them to write it that way into their backstory. That's my suggestion.
The name of a trait and the mechanical benefit are only loosely connected in my opinion. I can write the backstory I want, and take the traits for the mechanical benefits that I want, and there's no problem for my DM (I like to reflavor things often, and so do the people I play with). Consider the Princess benefit, of Diplomacy as class and +1 Diplomacy/Intimidate. A handy trait if you want your character to be social. Is being a princess really the only way to get these benefits? What if my character was raised on the streets, and he had to learn when to bootlick and when to make threats under less privileged circumstances? Do I have to make him female, and born a princess to take that trait? I think not.
Let them get the mechanical benefit they want, and don't force them to write it that way into their backstory. That's my suggestion.
Traits are aspects of your character outside of their class or profession, like feats, but they come with an association of behaviors or backgrounds. You're suggesting giving players the benefits of two half-feats without any connection. Why not just give them another feat at level 1, then? If the environment or events that provide the mechanical bonus don't mean anything to the character, then don't bother calling them traits, just move straight to feats, which are bonuses which really apply to any person off the street.
These things provide a mechanical benefit to the players and have the benefit (some would say disadvantage) of bringing "fluff" along with them. To get the advantage, you take the character trait that comes along with it. You want your character to have a trait that makes Diplomacy a class skill and gives a bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate? Make that character a Prince(ss). If that character is good at bootlicking and threats (and not a Prince or Princess), then that would be evident by them putting points into those skills instead, not by simply giving them the benefits of a Princess trait.
By that logic, you should also allow a character to declare any of their skills a class skill, with a +1 bonus in that skill and a separate (possibly synergistic skill) without any sort of background reason why. Since a character gets two traits, they could do that twice.
|
|
Nnnnnope.
As GM, I always supply my own lists of campaign traits. Pick one from list A, pick one from list B.
I do this because the way I was introduced to traits they were little bonuses that were meant to help tie PCs into the campaign more fully. And I liked them that way, darnit. Hook first, mechanical bennie second.
Since I know the campaign that is coming, I can also help "balance" the resulting traits for the campaign to come. So if there is not going to be a lick of swimming or sailing, no swimming or sailing traits. If there's going to be undead, expect a trait that gives Knowledge: Religion and a good reason to know a lot about the undead. And all generic published traits are forbidden. Forbidden I say! Traits are supposed to be hooks, add some spice! Generic-ness runs against that!
The net result has been nothing but positive experiences so far. Some more positive than others, but positive nonetheless. Example: in Rise of the Runelords, the new guy who wanted to play a half-ogre barbarian half-wit looked down the list and randomly picked a trait that made him the illegitimate nephew of Mayor Kendra Deverin. Suddenly the campaign had a very, very good reason for why the town put up with his idiotic antics and occasional half-ogre violence, and when he turned around and died heroically in the pitched battle at the end of Chapter 1 it had some real significance for everyone.
These things provide a mechanical benefit to the players and have the benefit (some would say disadvantage) of bringing "fluff" along with them. To get the advantage, you take the character trait that comes along with it. You want your character to have a trait that makes Diplomacy a class skill and gives a bonus on Diplomacy and Intimidate? Make that character a Prince(ss). If that character is good at bootlicking and threats (and not a Prince or Princess), then that would be evident by them putting points into those skills instead, not by simply giving them the benefits of a Princess trait.
By that logic, you should also allow a character to declare any of their skills a class skill, with a +1 bonus in that skill and a separate (possibly synergistic skill) without any sort of background reason why. Since a character gets two traits, they could do that twice.
They can come up with their own name for that trait. I see no reason to pidgeon-hole players into one type of background just so they can get the mechanical benefit they want. Why was it Princess and not Ambassador or any other name for that trait? It could've been called anything. There's no problem with calling it anything. Mechanical benefits should be balanced by mechanics, not by restricting your character background. I have no problem with characters taking the benefits of any two traits, and calling them whatever they want and writing their backstory the way they want.
And why are you okay with reflavoring the Princess trait into Prince? The trait is clearly Princess only, and if you want it, your character must be female, and a princess.
Ahem, to summarize my opinions: Mechanics are balanced by their mechanical prerequisites, not RP prerequisites. RP prerequisites don't control when you can access it, they just control if you can RP the character you want to, or if you have to RP a different character if you want those mechanical benefits. I don't see why you shouldn't be able to have both. Having both does not disrupt the game balance, and it doesn't get in the way of RP fun.
I don't have a problem with some traits being better than others. Smart players usually look for whatever gives them some advantage. Spellcasters tend to choose the better spells on their list, fighters tend to choose the best weapons for their build, etc.
No trait is so awesome that it's OP.
One of the goblins in my PbP picked "rich parents." Obviously, he wasn't born rich, but his character is a kleptomaniac, so it made sense he'd have a lot of stuff. We could have renamed the trait, but it's still the same thing, mechanically.
Traits are aspects of your character outside of their class or profession, like feats, but they come with an association of behaviors or backgrounds. You're suggesting giving players the benefits of two half-feats without any connection.
Well, not necessarily no connection, just not the one they offered.
For example, there's a trait that grants you disable device, Vagabond child. Its a taldor trait.
You grew up among the outcasts and outlaws of your
society, learning to forage and survive in an urban
environment.
Select one of the following skills: Disable Device or Sleight of Hand. You gain a +1 trait
bonus on that skill, and it is always a class skill for you.
Its a regional trait from taldor. Is there any reason that street urchins in other areas wouldn't have the same opportunity to learn?
For our campaign the cleric of Calistria has the trait as a result of certain activities in the temple rather than a life on the streets.
Likewise, My highwayman half orc has indomitable faith, I'll admit, because his will save needed the help. The campaign is about fighting a LE church gone bad, and i was going to have the highway man be a religious person a la zoro. The party's inquisitor is going that route, so we just retooled the background so that the orc is fairly superstitious and prays a version of "please don't hurt me" to various orcish deities from his mother's side. I now have a +1 bonus to something i needed and had incentive to flesh out the characters background and personality a bit.
The traits have achieved their role playing intent by helping to flesh out the characters backgrounds, even if we didn't use the provided backgrounds.
Why not just give them another feat at level 1, then?
The traits are a little less powerful, and can't be applied to the same thing, so it forces your character to grow out more than up.
You know, I decided to play a fighter in Council of Thieves once, and I wanted him to be good with his hands. Cestus and the Two-Weapon Fighter archtype went a long way in helping, but the trait that gave him Sleight of Hand and Disable Device as class skills was a nice finishing touch.
Fun character. Concept -> Mechanical
|
'Magical Knack' is an amazing trait. It's a must-have for cross-class spellcasters. The only way I see it losing it's lustre is if they actually released the "Practised Spellcaster" feat that doesn't stack with the trait.
(If they have released that feat, and I just don't own the splatbook for it yet, please someone, point me in the right direction.)
Some traits are more equal than other equal traits. But overall, the trait system is awesome and a few favourites doesn't make it sour.
A random option is a possibility.
Only allow 1 per trait category. Since there are 9 categories it allows for a wide variety of choices. While some classes have less or more choices from the full listing you may wish to allow 2 from 1 category in some cases.
Each player may choose 4 to 6 traits they would like to have. Assign these choices, in alphabetical order, to a d4 or d6 roll. They provide a single sentence for each or a complete story. The rolls determine which parts had a large impact on the character, while the others are just flavor.
Example:
Fred the Fighter
1. Armor Expert (Combat)
2. Bully (Social)
3. Infernal Influence (Race-Human)
4. Making Good on Promises (Carrion Crown)
5. Swordlord’s Page (Regional-Brevoy)
6. Veteran of Battle (Gorum)
Fred grew up in Brevoy.
Fred studied under a tournament knight.
Fred liked to pick on the smaller children in his youth.
Fred's family has ties to Cheliax going back many generations.
Fred worships Gorum.
Fred took part in a military campaign in Ustalav some years ago.
The game is set to the base 2 traits.
Fred rolls 4 and 1.
So he gets Armor Expert and Making Good on Promises. They were truly defining aspects that really influenced who he is more than the other things that had less of an impact.
You could of course make adjustments to how that works in various areas. I just thought of this off the top of my head as another option compared to the others suggested.
If you want to keep certain traits from being chosen each and every time, here are some ideas:
2. Make it one-trait-per-party, and hold an auction. Only one person gets Reactionary, for example. So if three out of four PCs show up with Reactionary, let them bid for it, giving up their other trait, or starting gold, or ability score points. Chances are all but one will simply decide they don't want the trait in the first place, or they'll work together to divvy up the favorite traits.
3. Make it one-trait-per-party, and draft traits. Maybe give all PCs four trait drafts, and let them wheel and deal for the traits. Once you have what you have, then you can build your PC backstory.
No more will you have a whole party of people who were beat up a lot for taking care of the family falcata.
Really? Would you do that for Weapon Focus? For Magic Missile? For Cure Light Wounds? Then why would you do it for traits?
First off, note the caveat: "If you want certain traits from being chosen each and every time..."
Second, sure, why not? How often do you have a party where all PCs grab Weapon Focus? Cure Light Wounds? Magic Missile? How often instead do you have one PC with Weapon Focus, one with Magic Missile, and one with Cure Light?
Actually, in my current game 6 of the 7 players have weapon focus: Oracle, Ftr/Oracle, Ftr/Paladin, Synth Summoner, Bard, and Magus. and 4 of us have cure light. When we have an Arcane heavy party we will normally have 3 to 4 with MM.
Additionally, of my last 7 characters all 7 have had weapon focus and imp init. Should you make those feats off limits for the next game? And what's amazing, they all had deeply detailed backstories full of plot hooks, they weren't the same class, they werent the same flavor at all.
Granted, you can do what you want with your homebrew rules. I wouldn't play in a game that artificially wanted to reduce my fun because the DM wanted to force the players to make suboptimal choices for their characters.
Granted, you can do what you want with your homebrew rules. I wouldn't play in a game that artificially wanted to reduce my fun because the DM wanted to force the players to make suboptimal choices for their characters.
Eh. Your DM also builds and balances the encounters. If he wants to adjust for weaker traits he can, and if he wants to throw an advanced T-Rex at you at level 4 he can. In that context freaking out over being suboptimal seems more than a little silly to me.
|
|
Additionally, of my last 7 characters all 7 have had weapon focus and imp init. Should you make those feats off limits for the next game? And what's amazing, they all had deeply detailed backstories full of plot hooks, they weren't the same class, they werent the same flavor at all.
Granted, you can do what you want with your homebrew rules. I wouldn't play in a game that artificially wanted to reduce my fun because the DM wanted to force the players to make suboptimal choices for their characters.
Honestly, I can't think of a build where Weapon Focus + Improved Initiative is an optimal build. For a rogue, perhaps, but they're outclassed. Improved Initative is best for battlefield controllers, and Weapon Focus is best for frontliners who can afford to go at Paladin Speed.
Your choices wouldn't be suboptimal, they just might not be what you're looking for, and that's a different story.
When building a character I always indulge one of my traits just for the mechanical benefit and one for the story, and I always have a back story, often before I have the mechanical definition of my character.
Additionally, of my last 7 characters all 7 have had weapon focus and imp init. Should you make those feats off limits for the next game? And what's amazing, they all had deeply detailed backstories full of plot hooks, they weren't the same class, they werent the same flavor at all.
Granted, you can do what you want with your homebrew rules. I wouldn't play in a game that artificially wanted to reduce my fun because the DM wanted to force the players to make suboptimal choices for their characters.
Honestly, I can't think of a build where Weapon Focus + Improved Initiative is an optimal build. For a rogue, perhaps, but they're outclassed. Improved Initative is best for battlefield controllers, and Weapon Focus is best for frontliners who can afford to go at Paladin Speed.
Your choices wouldn't be suboptimal, they just might not be what you're looking for, and that's a different story.
Force was the key word in that sentence.
Additionally, of my last 7 characters all 7 have had weapon focus and imp init... they all had deeply detailed backstories full of plot hooks, they weren't the same class, they werent the same flavor at all... I wouldn't play in a game that artificially wanted to reduce my fun because the DM wanted to force the players to make suboptimal choices for their characters.
By your words, we are not talking about the same thing.
We are talking about players NOT having deeply detailed back stories full of plot hooks. The are having fairly simplistic back stories that all look identical becase they are minimal and based around the same traits they want over and over again. I had two players give 4 line back stories that were almost word for word identical because they were just the bare minimum to justify the same 2 traits.
We are talking about ways to encourage some diversity. You apparently already have that.
Reaper Miniatures
|
I just have players write character histories and assign traits as I see fit based on what they bring to the table, sometimes I'll grant a feat instead and on the rare occasion, I've granted a whole NPC class level.
In our two Spirit of the Century campaigns, we used a similar device - You write out the Novel your character appeared in, (not the whole novel, you write the dust jacket synopsis) and then choose two traits for your character that stem naturally from the synopsis - if your story starts in a bar, you get "two fisted drinker" and "brawler", for example. Then you pass the sheet to the left, and the next player writes the dust jacket version of the novel wherein your PC and his PC meet - and he chooses one trait for you based off his description, and you read it and choose the second. The process repeats with the player to your right. In the end, you have 6 traits, and you hand picked four, and had two chosen for you. For our group, anyway, this worked very well. YMMV.
Not that I suggest that method for all games, but I do like the idea of traits being derived from backstories. Now, that doesn't necessarily address the OP's concern, though, because all the wily player must do is always include an Heirloom Weapon and lots of mention about how they jump the gun on attackers - because they want +1 initiative.
Eh. Your DM also builds and balances the encounters. If he wants to adjust for weaker traits he can, and if he wants to throw an advanced T-Rex at you at level 4 he can. In that context freaking out over being suboptimal seems more than a little silly to me.Granted, you can do what you want with your homebrew rules. I wouldn't play in a game that artificially wanted to reduce my fun because the DM wanted to force the players to make suboptimal choices for their characters.
I guess this also comes down to a difference of philosophy around traits, which I see as a character (RP) building tool that has a mechanical benefit attached, as opposed to something taken for the mechanical benefit--and anyone worried about whether a trait is optimal for a build is taking it for the mechanical benefit, not because it fits their envisionment of the character's story or personality.
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.
This.
This is what usually happens with some of my players. I think what I'm going to do is reduce the number of trait choices to one, and have the other come from a Campaign Setting. Not sure which campaign we're going to play next, but it will most likely be an Adventure Path starting from level one.
I also like the idea of just customizing two lists based on the Campaign Setting and having the players pick which traits they want from each list. It's a good way to cull the ones that don't really fit, that they probably won't pick anyway.
Another solution is to combine both those ideas and have them pick one trait from my list, and one from any list.
Much more food for thought :)