traits seems to make optimizers happy as they've got one more variable with a huge-ish repertoire to play with, and it's so minor that even the dirtiest optimizers can't break the game (sorry for the verb) through this, at least I never heard something about it on the board, and never had ingame problems with traits.
But for the normal player it's close to a waste of time, you could just aswell grant an extra feat at lvl 1.
Just my opinion of course.
I like them. I rarely use the implied flavor verbatim, but it quite often prompts some similar backstory for me.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really like them.
They let me patch problems I have with some of the classes: like druids not knowing dungeon ecology (knowledge dungeoneering), Sorcerers not being good with people (diplomacy)
A lot of them are fun and flavorful things you really couldn't waste a feat on, like the whip trait that lets you play Indiana Jones with it.
They're a nice springboard for character background to think about, either for the flavor text or trying to figure out why your wizard took an interest in the great outdoors.
Yes, the biggest thing they offer is make a skill a class skill wich really sometimes feels needed and helps make the character a bit more unique.
Or give a minor +1 to a save or so.
I think its a good thing but rarely worth spending hours brooding over (even thouhg i regularily do :( )
Huge fan of them, myself. They are a couple of little mechanical hooks to help with your backstory or characterization, while also allowing one to grab a class skill or two that makes sense for you, but isn't normally on your list. It can also be an opportunity to grab a weird, situational ability without impairing yourself as much as if you spent a feat on something "just for fun."
While I wouldn't want to restrict them to just the skill bonuses, there are a few types of trait that I'm not a big fan of. There are some that really don't have anything to do with anything, and I feel kind of miss the point of traits. I mean, what does being an Accelerated Drinker have to do with being from Cheliax? I'm also not a huge fan of the bonuses to saves and initiative, as are quite strong compared to other options. Especially if you don't care about forcing your backstory into whatever mold allows them. I sometimes wish they had restricted them to certain situations, or left primarily as Campaign traits or something. But that is a pretty darn minor concern, and overall I'd say traits are one of my favorite things Pathfinder has done. Really, huge fan of them.
|
I'm a huge fan of traits for basically all the reasons givenby others.
I especially love the ability to play, say, a socially competent Ranger or Fighter or a Wizard with UMD, or a dozen other cool and unusual skill combinations without crippling the character in the process. I love the Cosmopolitan Feat for the same reason.
I enjoy traits because it adds more of a background customization ability to your character. So I could have a fighter that's a smooth talker or a haughty wizard that is great at intimidating people.
|
I really like them.
They let me patch problems I have with some of the classes: like druids not knowing dungeon ecology (knowledge dungeoneering), Sorcerers not being good with people (diplomacy)
A lot of them are fun and flavorful things you really couldn't waste a feat on, like the whip trait that lets you play Indiana Jones with it.
They're a nice springboard for character background to think about, either for the flavor text or trying to figure out why your wizard took an interest in the great outdoors.
Now I agree with traits being used mainly for skills but anything outside of that I don't like.
I like them. That is all. They help me come up with good backstory.
|
|
The only problem I have is that there are far too few. There's a Trait for only a handful of Skills; there should be a Trait for each of the Skills.
You clearly haven't been looking through all the Trait resources.
Check here.
I challenge you to find a Skill there isn't a Trait for on that list. There might be a few...but not many.
Now I agree with traits being used mainly for skills but anything outside of that I don't like.
What's wrong with being able to play Indiana Jones?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I enjoy traits. They allow some fun flavour and/or skill bonuses. I've an inquisitor that I took two worlds magic just so I could get prestidigitation. The image of an inquisitor who has his own theme music, is always immaculately dressed etc, too good to pass up.
I like traits, but there are a couple wonky ones. The stated goal of having 2 traits = 1 feat by the developers did not play out well in some cases. While they may be numerically correct, look at Reactionary vs Improved Initiative. While you get 1/2 the bonus with Reactionary, the likelihood that it is taken is significantly higher than Improved Initiative because feats are more restricted by nature. If it's more appealing than the feat, then it really isn't 1/2 a feat. Obviously, for numeric purposes, you can't cut it down to +1 because then it's significantly less desirable than other trait options.
It's a difficult conundrum. Personally, I would have made the initiative bonus a racial-only and left it with Elves and Half-Elves. Cat's out of the bag, though, and so it goes. As is, how many Society characters were beat up as kids? 6/10? More?
The skill traits are extremely good, as well, and are frequently more powerful than other options out there, such as things like Sacred Touch. Sacred Touch is good, but it's not great and is easily replaced with a level 1 Cleric, Witch, etc.
I think there are some balancing issues that are extremely difficult to address in the traits given the design paradigm being utilized.
Now I agree with traits being used mainly for skills but anything outside of that I don't like.
On the other hand I think Traits limited to skill buffs is kind of bland. While I'm not opposed to using one, of the two Traits you can select, I tend to pick one that is a skill enhancement and the other as something completely different.
In Rite Publishing's 101 Traits for Pirates, lots of the traits are more like one-time boons like calling up a barely navigable ship from the bottom of the sea that you as captain and one first mate can navigate to a single port - a la the Black Pearl. But once you use the boon it is gone and can never be used again.
There are a few traits that extend beyond skill bonuses, and I always select one that is like that.
Wyang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage allowing me to have maximized fireballs in a 4th-level slot really makes me wonder if they are worth half a feat. I know of no feat that allows me to lower metamagic by even one level, much less two.
Traits only look minor on the surface, but in truth are a main/maxer's wet dream.
.
(Note that I didn't necessarily say they were good or bad for the game. I personally believe more options are better provided they aren't complete garbage like monk vows.)
The only problem I have is that there are far too few. There's a Trait for only a handful of Skills; there should be a Trait for each of the Skills.You clearly haven't been looking through all the Trait resources.
Check here.
I challenge you to find a Skill there isn't a Trait for on that list. There might be a few...but not many.
Climb
I do not like traits and I have no logical reason as to why that is.
I feel like instead of just some free bonuses you get for no cost they should have like an equal minus somewhere. Like if one adds +1 fort saves for whatever reason it also has -1 will saves. I would probably use them if they did.
Also some of them seem just a lot better than others like:
"you gain a +1 trait bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls against aberrations and magical beasts."
Just not something i'm willing to give to a player for free.
Yes, the biggest thing they offer is make a skill a class skill wich really sometimes feels needed and helps make the character a bit more unique.
Or give a minor +1 to a save or so.I think its a good thing but rarely worth spending hours brooding over (even thouhg i regularily do :( )
I don't actually like the Class skill+1 type of trait.
It annoys me that you can take that and be better than a class that's supposed to specialize in that skill. It's hardly worth taking if you already get the skill, since it's then only a +1.I think I'd rather have it just be the Class skill with no additional bonus or maybe a flat bonus instead of making it a class skill.
I kinda agree with you there.
They should have made it "the skill is now considered a class skill OR you get a +1 bonus on it (your choice)" or just scratch the +1 completely.I mostly take it to make bluff or diplomacy or something that I think my character would have but the class doesn't, and would take it even without the +1. Or some of the special things that only come up once in a blue moon, they're usually fun.
|
|
In my games I only allow traits from the Adventure Path player's guide and the APG. Keeps down the bloat and focuses the Player's character concepts.A pretty good rule. I would add racial/regional traits from a relevant source for non-standard races, pending GM approval myself.
I do like traits that you could get because of your race or region because it helps to flesh out your PC even more, especially when it comes to your or region.
Saying you are from "X" region is good but it fleshes your PC out even more when you have a trait to go along with that.