| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before I pose this question for contemplation I want to be the first to admit my own guilty indulgence of this trait. How can the majority of PC's spend their childhood being bullied just to gain a +4 to initiative? Call me LG, but it just doesn't seem feasible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Before I pose this question for contemplation I want to be the first to admit my own guilty indulgence of this trait. How can the majority of PC's spend their childhood being bullied just to gain a +4 to initiative? Call me LG, but it just doesn't seem feasible.
Small correction: The trait only grant +2 initiative.
All in all, I agree that it is a bit annoying to see the trait taken so often.
However the bullying might account for why they choose a lifestyle of killing beings that are slightly different from themselves...
As a generic trait, I'm willing to give Reactionary a broader reading than most. Almost any character with a long history of martial training could probably justify the idea of "You spent a lot of your childhood under threat of constant attack in some form," which might apply to a broad selection of characters.
I like this explanation the best.
IMC, one out of five has Reactionary. And he's a half-orc. His other feat is Outcast (which is mechanically terrible, just +1 Survival in his case), so the backstory fits well enough.
|
REACTIONARY. I used to take this trait and never thought about what it meant. I just wanted the +2 bonus...
Then I realized my boss had the real life reactionary trait. The type of person who you never know how they are going to react to any situation, so sometimes, you don't tell them stuff. A little volatile.
I have a 14 strength in real life.
Reactionary is the trait you take in PFS until you realize that what you really need are Armor Expert + Dangerously Curious, or a pair of Class Skill traits, or...anything else, really. Not enough tricks in that particular pony, especially when it comes to accomplishing your faction missions.
Outside of PFS, I'd wager it's a lot better.
My current character didn't take reactionary. Actually, neither did my other character (switched out at last minute due to party makeup). I took Adopted (by Idylkin) to be a NG monk, and Magical Knack to keep my CL up to 3 for a 1 level dip in cleric.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can the majority of PC's spend their childhood being bullied...
Uh, the same way the majority of the players of those PCs did?
I've never had a game involving traits in which at least one player didn't take Reactionary.
I dont think anyone at our table has reactionary...
Before I pose this question for contemplation I want to be the first to admit my own guilty indulgence of this trait. How can the majority of PC's spend their childhood being bullied just to gain a +4 to initiative? Call me LG, but it just doesn't seem feasible.
Anyone with an older brother fully understands this trait, I grew up with 4 older brothers...
Reactionary is the trait you take in PFS until you realize that what you really need are Armor Expert + Dangerously Curious, or a pair of Class Skill traits, or...anything else, really. Not enough tricks in that particular pony, especially when it comes to accomplishing your faction missions.
Outside of PFS, I'd wager it's a lot better.
Except for the PFS thing this is where I'm at. But if I DON'T have 2 other traits I want for my concept, then reactionary is probably going in there because I generally don't have the feat slot for Improved Init.
Reactionary is why we have refluffing.
I've got two PF PCs at the moment, and I'm afraid I have to admit they both have Reactionary. Mostly because one is a pure battlefield controller that simply needs to act first, and the other is a buffer/controller that would like to act before his allies so they get the buff on their first action.
For the first one it's really appropriate for his background; as a child he was captured as a slave, and mistreated a lot until he was finally sold to be trained as an apprentice. For the second it doesn't fit quite as well. I just needed a trait, and this was the first one that came to mind. He's a bastard, so it's not impossible that he got tormented by his half-siblings.
Reactionary is the trait you take in PFS until you realize that what you really need are Armor Expert + Dangerously Curious, or a pair of Class Skill traits, or...anything else, really. Not enough tricks in that particular pony, especially when it comes to accomplishing your faction missions.
Outside of PFS, I'd wager it's a lot better.
People are funny. I'm exactly the opposit. I used to take Armor Expert and Dangerously Curious until I relized how useless they were to me. Mithral Armor meant that most I'd take is a -1 to skills, which I was alright with, and then by the time I could use a wand with any sort of consistancy I had another way to solve the problem I was using a wand for anyway. That's when I defaulted to Reactionary.
People are just too hung up on the description. Reactionary could just as easily be called "Quick Reflexes" and grant a +2 Initiative. the description is just fluff, and players should feel free to invent their own descriptions to explain the trait bonus.
There's always going to be some traits that are "better" than others. It's no different than virtually every fighter type taking Power Attack as a feat.
The idea of traits is to help flesh out background some, IMO. If you don't use the trait's written background, it makes less sense to take the trait.
The players in my campaign are allowed to take one Campaign Trait (from a provided list, based on official Campaign Traits I've read but with flavor suited to our campaign) and pick one additional trait that cannot be a campaign trait, but can be any other kind of trait.
So far as I know, none of the players yet have chosen Reactionary as their one additional trait. Of course my players barely have an idea of the existance of traits most of the time, so I have to remind them to pick traits. I need to verify with them that they all have traits.
I think that from now on I am going to just pick traits based upon flavor. Although it is hard to give up going first when I play a buff/debuffer.
People are just too hung up on the description. Reactionary could just as easily be called "Quick Reflexes" and grant a +2 Initiative. the description is just fluff, and players should feel free to invent their own descriptions to explain the trait bonus.
There's always going to be some traits that are "better" than others. It's no different than virtually every fighter type taking Power Attack as a feat.
I would disagree with this. Traits were designed explicitly as a way to flesh out a character's backstory (which, tangentially, makes the additional traits feat weird; "I suddenly remembered I was bullied as a kid!")
That being said, traits are a pretty bad way to force characters to have a backstory (with the exception of campaign traits, which create an interesting hook into a campaign). I would prefer traits to be de-flavored and given for free on levels where you do not gain a feat or an attribute bonus.
People are just too hung up on the description. Reactionary could just as easily be called "Quick Reflexes" and grant a +2 Initiative. the description is just fluff, and players should feel free to invent their own descriptions to explain the trait bonus.
There's always going to be some traits that are "better" than others. It's no different than virtually every fighter type taking Power Attack as a feat.
I would disagree with this. Traits were designed explicitly as a way to flesh out a character's backstory (which, tangentially, makes the additional traits feat weird; "I suddenly remembered I was bullied as a kid!")
That being said, traits are a pretty bad way to force characters to have a backstory (with the exception of campaign traits, which create an interesting hook into a campaign). I would prefer traits to be de-flavored and given for free on levels where you do not gain a feat or an attribute bonus.
That is an interesting idea.
People are just too hung up on the description. Reactionary could just as easily be called "Quick Reflexes" and grant a +2 Initiative. the description is just fluff, and players should feel free to invent their own descriptions to explain the trait bonus.
There's always going to be some traits that are "better" than others. It's no different than virtually every fighter type taking Power Attack as a feat.
I would disagree with this. Traits were designed explicitly as a way to flesh out a character's backstory (which, tangentially, makes the additional traits feat weird; "I suddenly remembered I was bullied as a kid!")
That being said, traits are a pretty bad way to force characters to have a backstory (with the exception of campaign traits, which create an interesting hook into a campaign). I would prefer traits to be de-flavored and given for free on levels where you do not gain a feat or an attribute bonus.
And what I'm suggesting is that the player and/or GM can create their own back story for their traits. I personally can't stand some of the traits descriptions, and there can be many ways a PC can acquire a trait that grants the same bonuses as another trait.
And what I'm suggesting is that the player and/or GM can create their own back story for their traits. I personally can't stand some of the traits descriptions, and there can be many ways a PC can acquire a trait that grants the same bonuses as another trait.People are just too hung up on the description. Reactionary could just as easily be called "Quick Reflexes" and grant a +2 Initiative. the description is just fluff, and players should feel free to invent their own descriptions to explain the trait bonus.
There's always going to be some traits that are "better" than others. It's no different than virtually every fighter type taking Power Attack as a feat.
I would disagree with this. Traits were designed explicitly as a way to flesh out a character's backstory (which, tangentially, makes the additional traits feat weird; "I suddenly remembered I was bullied as a kid!")
That being said, traits are a pretty bad way to force characters to have a backstory (with the exception of campaign traits, which create an interesting hook into a campaign). I would prefer traits to be de-flavored and given for free on levels where you do not gain a feat or an attribute bonus.
Yeah, I also suggested this 3 posts above yours...
You were bullied as a child? Welcome to planet Earth! :D
Its an optimization trick that most of us will take advantage of at some point or another. Its not even hard to justify, as anyone who's intelligent will eventually set "lines in the sand" and react appropriately if they see things developing that remind them of previous ambushes, assaults or similar problems.
|
My first PFS character had the Bully trait for intimidate bonuses, and because it fits his personality. My second PFS character is his sister, who has the Reactionary trait. No refluff necessary.
I have a gnome with the Excitable trait, which fits his stereotypically gnomish personality well, and works well because he's a controller sorcerer who needs to go first. I think I may have Reactionary on one or two others, but I have 11 PFS PCs, so that's still less than half that have initiative traits. And those that do have specific reasons for needing good initiative - it's not just a "I have nothing better to take" default trait. In fact, I think all of them that have Reactionary or Excitable also have Improved Init.
Maybe the mechanical effect of traits should be smaller, and the story-related effects larger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My latest character has a flaw where he rolls a d12 for initiative.
Needless to say, he didn't bother to take Reactionary.
Are here any DMs out there who choose traits for their players, based off of the character's written back story?
EDIT: traits, not feats. :)
...based off of the character's written back story?
What beautiful land do you come from? What rare paradise?
Nice.
I always write one, usually not more than a page. When I run a game I harass the players to make one, but with limited success. Not many people I play with write them. I wish things were different.
I use traits in one of two ways.
Usually, I have a character background/personality/concept in mind and I can easily find traits that support it.
Sometimes, more cynically, I'm looking to shore something up mechanically, like a weak saving throw, for example. In those cases, however, I always take the flavor text into account in writing background and personality, so even then it becomes an aid and prompt to role-playing.
Are here any DMs out there who choose traits for their players, based off of the character's written back story?
EDIT: traits, not feats. :)
"My character was extremely curious and got bullied a lot."
"My character comes from a long line of magicians who specialized in Shocking Grasp. I also spent some time in Wayang, uh, Shadowhunting...and I used, uh, Frostbite a lot."
My point is that you'll just change the character building challenge from picking traits, to writing a background in such a way as to guarantee certain traits.
|
|
I use traits in one of two ways.
Usually, I have a character background/personality/concept in mind and I can easily find traits that support it.
Sometimes, more cynically, I'm looking to shore something up mechanically, like a weak saving throw, for example. In those cases, however, I always take the flavor text into account in writing background and personality, so even then it becomes an aid and prompt to role-playing.
I do a lot of that, not just with traits, but other things as well. My character ideas usually start with wanting to try something mechanically, but then I make a point of giving them a personality and back story that go with the mechanical character I've designed.
For instance, take my Lore Warden fighter. Because LWs are very good at combat maneuvers, I wanted to do a CMB specialist, and I was already figuring I'd probably go human for the extra skill rank and bonus feat. Looking through the traits, I found Bred for War, which gives a +1 to CMB, but you have to be an ethnically Shoanti human. So I decided my PC would be Shoanti, and then built my back story from that starting point.
IMC, I insisted that at least one feat was background-based and mechanically a bit rubbish. They include skill traits for Profession (Soldier), Swim, Knowledge (Nobility) and Survival. Otherwise, everyone ended up with a +2 save trait of some nature, or Reactionary.
So far, 2 of the skill traits have been useful, and the save traits haven't. But it's early days.
|
I prefer to take Exile... same +2 initiative buff, plus mysterious/shady/righteously-angry hunters from Back Home dogging the trail.
I have been known to make a character Adopted by elves to take Warrior of Old...
Eh.
Either you limit the number of people who can take Initiative-buffing Traits, or you ban the Traits, or you just accept that they are pound-for-pound among the better Traits available.
It gets ridiculous when you're playing a Diviner...
Initiative is pretty nice, but you also seen worshipers of Torag, right?
Defensive Strategist (Torag)
Benefit: You are not flat-footed when you are an unaware combatant. This includes a surprise round that you don’t get to act in, and before you get to act at the start of a battle.
Never Flat-footed unless someone actively tries to feint you.
I like the fluff of Reactionary, but have never taken it, since it is literally half a feat and I can use traits to get much better things than half a feat.
So I guess I'm the opposite of most here (who like the buff, but hate the fluff).
Have used a lot of the religion traits. They tend to be ridiculously powerful and have only a token connection to the god its related to. Defensive Strategist (basically Uncanny Dodge), Lessons of whats-her-name (it's like the Greater save feats, except you can choose among all 3 types!), blade of mercy (it's like Bludgeoner for slashing weapons w/ a free damage bonus thrown in!)... that's some crazy awesome right there.
