|
I guess the problem with open traits is that the min-max brigade pounce on the 'best' few and write guides telling everyone that they're a doofus for not selecting them.
I like that traits are designed to support the synthesis of characters and stat blocks.
And, to be honest, I don't think street urchins are the same the world over. Is an urchin prowling the bazaars of Katapesh really going to be essentially the same character as one huddling by fires in Irrisen, or pick-pocketing religious tourists in Absalom?
Isn't your suggestion that every street urchin in the world should be the same, rather than street urchins in a specific region/city sharing similarities?
Doesn't it make sense that a street urchin in Katapesh should share similarities with another urchin from Katapesh that it does not have in common with a Vudrani urchin?
What's cool is that Nightstall Urchin (Katapesh) connects you with Katapeshi urchins' culture of bravado but the urchin in Irrisen takes Frostborn or Icewalker to survive.
|
I agree about the traits. It is disappointing in that there is so much repeated, more than a few that are clearly weaker or less advantagious in both mechanical and non-mechanical ways, and that they are too restricted sometimes. A problem I have is with the religious and faith traits. The vast majority offer only a +1 to a skill for religious and faith based classes, because they already have the other benefits.
The other traits build and expand for the classes they are intended most of the time, but for Clerics and Paladins, (and Oracles and Inquisitors, etc. . .) it offers mostly what they already have. The ones designed for a specific deity are usual exception, but many of them do not actually seem to be in line with that deity so much, in my opinion. Some are, and some are just there with a name stamped on it.
I fully agree in just dropping all the +2 to a skill and it's now a Class skill, +1-3 to a Save, and +1 to 2 skills, pick one as a Class Skill and make a single Trait that lets you simply pick an extra Class Skill ANDflavor it to the character and the setting. Easy-peasy, and much more satisfying, in my opinon.
I've also heard other people complain often enough that all the Campaign Traits, the one that boost Init is always the one people go for because it's that good. I think so far every single AP has one, too, so maybe that should be dropped for a single trait, too?
|
I guess the problem with open traits is that the min-max brigade pounce on the 'best' few and write guides telling everyone that they're a doofus for not selecting them.
I'd rather not have them write game content, peeking over their shoulders concerned about what the guide-writers are gonna say about it. And, in my experience, tight flavor restrictions just lead to an overabundance of whatever is required to meet that restriction, even if it ends up being a whole party that comes from Region Y, because Region Y has the coolest trait / feat / regional gear. (Where's my guy from? Whatever region of the Realms gives 'Bloodline of Fire' as my bonus regional feat...)
Opening up the flavor allows role-players to select traits that can be fitted to their backstory / concept, and yet also work well mechanically for their 'build.' It's a win for both the 'min-maxer' and the 'true role-player.'
|
|
I guess the problem with open traits is that the min-max brigade pounce on the 'best' few and write guides telling everyone that they're a doofus for not selecting them.I'd rather not have them write game content, peeking over their shoulders concerned about what the guide-writers are gonna say about it. And, in my experience, tight flavor restrictions just lead to an overabundance of whatever is required to meet that restriction, even if it ends up being a whole party that comes from Region Y, because Region Y has the coolest trait / feat / regional gear. (Where's my guy from? Whatever region of the Realms gives 'Bloodline of Fire' as my bonus regional feat...)
Opening up the flavor allows role-players to select traits that can be fitted to their backstory / concept, and yet also work well mechanically for their 'build.' It's a win for both the 'min-maxer' and the 'true role-player.'
Yep, it works well for a 'min-maxer' or a 'true-role-player' but it doesn not work as well for the majority of players I have seen who are somewhere in between those two. The 'synthesis between crunch and fluff' brigade are the majority of people I have played with, both IRL and on these boards.
Your experience seems to be of players favouring stats over flavour, quite heavily, so perhaps our different perspectives on this are caused by our different experiences at the table.
|
|
Honestly, I don't care at all about Traits' Flavor. I don't say that as a min-maxer, but I want to pick a Trait that offers me the mechanical benefit that helps my Class do something unique write it on my sheet, and ignor the Fluff as I make up my own. It might be similar or it might be completely contradictory but I actually enjoy ceating my own reasoning for the Traits the same way I do when I pick Feats, or focus on Skills, or whatever. In that aspect, the Campaign Traits are the worst, in my opinion.
It's too easy and a great deal of the fun up front to come up with reasons and hooks, (on my own) why the character is there, is or is not part of the group, and knows or does not know people in the area. Campaign Traits are basically just manditory Flaws I'm not interested in, (ie they have no part in my character's actual backstory though the mechanics do).
|
|
I guess this is the same issue as the class/race breakdown in the AP Player's Guides.
Some people like them because they help them with character creation/inspiration whilst others don't need the help and find them a hindrance.
Fortunately for those players, Traits are an entirely optional part of the gam and the rules for them are not even in the CRB.
Becket, I'm interested, if you are playing in an AP how do you make sure that your character is appropriate, motivated and engaged with the plot arc that they're going to be on until level 16?
|
|
I work with the Dm and the other players, read the player's guide and have a decent knowledge of Golarion already. I find that working with the others, though is the best method, as it both tends to make connections to the game and personal hooks unque and close to the character rather than the options resented that often I have no interest in. I do not mean to say that all of them are bad, they are not. But I, as a personal opinion, feel that the flavor of Trais should be 100% up to the individual player to creat as part of character and party creation. If you have a Trait that deals with Prof Sailor, it isnt difficult to come up with a reason your character is familiar with sailing and/or ships when ther Class normally isn't, or mor so than the average version of their Class.
As far as going to level 16, most Campaign Traits are specifically designed only for a quick introduction to the AP, and usually become irrelivant after that, (besides the mechanics). As an example, and without too much of a spoiler, in Carrion Crown, every single Trait's flavor is basically null during the first play, other than the mechanics. Jade R did a better job over all, and I do not know off hand about S&S. It's fairly simple, in my opinion. But for players who do not like to put so much detail or wrk into the character up front, I can easily see the Campaign Traits being an easy and appropriate "in".
|
|
I work with the Dm and the other players, read the player's guide and have a decent knowledge of Golarion already. I find that working with the others, though is the best method, as it both tends to make connections to the game and personal hooks unque and close to the character rather than the options resented that often I have no interest in. I do not mean to say that all of them are bad, they are not. But I, as a personal opinion, feel that the flavor of Trais should be 100% up to the individual player to creat as part of character and party creation. If you have a Trait that deals with Prof Sailor, it isnt difficult to come up with a reason your character is familiar with sailing and/or ships when ther Class normally isn't, or mor so than the average version of their Class.
As far as going to level 16, most Campaign Traits are specifically designed only for a quick introduction to the AP, and usually become irrelivant after that, (besides the mechanics). As an example, and without too much of a spoiler, in Carrion Crown, every single Trait's flavor is basically null during the first play, other than the mechanics. Jade R did a better job over all, and I do not know off hand about S&S. It's fairly simple, in my opinion. But for players who do not like to put so much detail or work into the character up front, I can easily see the Campaign Traits being an easy and appropriate "in".
I guess I just see traits as a way of motivsting players to make characters who will fit the campaign. JR, you're right, does a great job of this. S&S has such a clear campaign style that it is less necessary but Council of Thieves (minus the terrible be-a-hellknight trait) does a similar job. I suppose the Carrion Crown traits are there to put your characters on the first few cobblestones of the path (pun intended).
Perhaps campaign traits are more useful for players and/or GMs who are new to Golarion and PathfinderRPG?
I also really like the race/class stuff in the Player's Guides which is now being phased out: the combination provided a lot of character inspiration which I could be confident would suit the campaign as well.
Count me in for wanting them thick enough to have something on the spine - right now they are a pain on the bookshelf.
Could we slow down the release pace and go deeper on topics to accomplish that?
I also hate the staples type covers, same reason that they don't 'show' on the bookshelf.
Restraunts, locales, sayings, slang, cuisine, aphorisms, customs, fashion... I'd like to see more of this.
Agreed! Actually the Cheliax book had a BIT of this, only in combat slang, but it said that like Cheliaxians call daggers a "fang" and healing a person is "doing them a favor".