Traits must be from different categories - do you use it?

[Samy]

So, RAW, traits you pick must be from different categories. As in, no two Campaign traits, or no two Basic (Magic) traits, no two Race traits, and so on.

This probably doesn't come up much if you get two traits and are doing an AP where one of them has to be a Campaign trait. But when you throw in that some games give you the Campaign trait for free, plus you can take Drawbacks and the Additional Traits feat, sometimes you can have four, even five traits. So then it might become more likely that your trait categories might clash.

1) Do people generally really keep track of this?

2) Is it gamebreaking big if you don't?

[wraithstrike]

1. Everyone I play with enforces it, including myself.

2. Nope, but the game is partly about resource management and making decisions.

PS: This will likely be move to general discussion since the rules area is used to get rules clarifications, not to discuss if the rule is enforced.

[Under A Bleeding Sun]

1) Same as Wraith
2) Agree with Wraith

[Maezer]

1) Yes. You'll find the majority of people follow the rules (or make a reasonable effort to do so), if for no other reason than its a lot of work to explain what rules one should follow and one can ignore.

2) If you ignore the rule as a power grab, then its mildly unbalancing. But if your game is so close to broken that a trait pushes you there, its destine to be broken anyhow.

[Diekssus]

Yup always enforce it, Although not overpowered, it beats the point of taking them, they are RP tie-ins (in addition to the bonuses) so its makes a better character if they are from different categories.

[LazarX]

Samy wrote:

So, RAW, traits you pick must be from different categories. As in, no two Campaign traits, or no two Basic (Magic) traits, no two Race traits, and so on.

This probably doesn't come up much if you get two traits and are doing an AP where one of them has to be a Campaign trait. But when you throw in that some games give you the Campaign trait for free, plus you can take Drawbacks and the Additional Traits feat, sometimes you can have four, even five traits. So then it might become more likely that your trait categories might clash.

1) Do people generally really keep track of this?

2) Is it gamebreaking big if you don't?

I'm going to go with Wraith on both of these and I have an additional thing on no 2.

People ask that question all the time. The thing is when you allow one breach, and then another, when does it stop?

It's also the wrong question... the real one should be; Is the game improved by breaking the rule so a player can have an exploit? In most cases the answer is no. The game is balanced about making choices that give one option over the expense of others.

[Pan]

I tend to loosely track trait selection and expect my players to choose from different categories. I know every players AP campaign trait. If a player made a compelling reason to take from the same category I would be willing to consider it.

[Luthorne]

Er...yeah, I keep track of it? Same general category as a fighter getting combat bonus feats, isn't it? Can't say it's ever caused me much agony, and I don't usually take Extra Traits unless I have a good idea of what extra traits I want. It's just a decision...pick one, exclude the others in that category, go looking in the other categories and see if there's something fitting.

Don't know if it would be game-breaking per se, though there's definitely some useful traits, and I tend to presume part of the inherent balance is deciding to take one and having to not take other nice ones, but can't say I have anything to back that up, and it's ultimately mostly minor. Mildly unbalancing, perhaps? If I could take more than one from the same category, I probably would, mind, but don't really think about it that much. If I was going to start weeding out rules that annoy me, don't think trait categories are where I'd start, personally...

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah...I'm with everyone else. Why not enforce it?

It's a balancing measure, and a decent one. Now, they're just Traits, so it's not the end of the world if you don't, but why wouldn't you?

[Zhayne]

No, and no.

[The Shining Fool]

I enforce it for free traits, but not for extras purchased through the "extra traits" feat. Not enforcing it isn't game-breaking.

[James Jacobs]

The primary reason for the "can't pick from the same category" wasn't one for game balance. It was more of a story balance thing—traits are ways to encourage players to get a little bit of background in for their characters, and by saying you can't double up, you broaden the background out a bit.

[blahpers]

1. Yes (same reason as JJ mentions above).
2. Not really.

The games I GM tend to involve each PC taking a custom campaign trait, though, so it hasn't come up much.

[Aratrok]

1) No.
2) No.

I haven't really seen traits ever be defining to people's backgrounds. I see them as a cute way to round out a character and hit a concept more easily with different classes, mostly due to class skills. The categories don't really matter to us, so we don't track it.

[JohnF]

Well, I don't keep track of it personally. But that's because I use HeroLab for keeping track of characters, and HeroLab knows about that limitation.

It's not game-breaking, but it is a rule, and IMO it's not worth house-ruling away.

[Samy]

Thanks for your thoughts, guys. I haven't been enforcing it myself because I felt it added one more complexity to juggle in an already complex character creation process and I didn't feel like dealing with it. It's interesting to see that the majority of you seem to have no problem with it. I guess I'm just lazy in comparison. :D

[wraithstrike]

Samy wrote:

Thanks for your thoughts, guys. I haven't been enforcing it myself because I felt it added one more complexity to juggle in an already complex character creation process and I didn't feel like dealing with it. It's interesting to see that the majority of you seem to have no problem with it. I guess I'm just lazy in comparison. :D

It is not difficult. Just tell the players not to do. Now if you have the type of players that HAVE to be audited I can understand why you might not think it is worth the trouble.

[Samy]

My situation specifically is a special case because I usually play solo, as in both DM and 4-6 characters, so it's about juggling all the variables in my own mind.

[Ascalaphus]

Well, there's a couple of traits that are so good that they might monopolize a trait category. For example: there are some neat Magic traits out there, but Magical Lineage is just irresistible for your magus. That's when the rule has a meaningful effect.

You could say that's a problem with some of the traits just being too good, however.

[wraithstrike]

Samy wrote:

My situation specifically is a special case because I usually play solo, as in both DM and 4-6 characters, so it's about juggling all the variables in my own mind.

I am confused. Are you saying you are the GM and the party?

[Samy]

Yeah.

[mswbear]

Samy wrote:

Yeah.

why?

[Samy]

Wanting to play, but social anxiety.

[LordofMuck]

At least you can't complain about your players then - and your players won't complain about their GM ;)

That aside, have you tried/considered trying out playing in a Play by Post (messageboard) or through online virtual table top and chat software? That can also be a good way of playing, while it might be less "intimidating" socially. And be a good way to try it out. Of course i also recommend that you try and find a real life group to play with, in my experience roleplaying groups are often very understanding of social anxiety, and it CAN be a good way to meet with someone, yet also having it be accetable to keep one's distance somewhat.

Just my thoughts.

[Samy]

Thanks man. :)

[blahpers]

Aratrok wrote:

1) No.

2) No.

I haven't really seen traits ever be defining to people's backgrounds. I see them as a cute way to round out a character and hit a concept more easily with different classes, mostly due to class skills. The categories don't really matter to us, so we don't track it.

If players choose traits solely for mechanical benefits, then they're probably going to get little in the way of background from them unless they're the kind of players that prefer to derive mechanics from RP rather than the other way around.

[Voadam]

I follow the rule but its not an important one IMO. If you are interested in the mechanically useful specific class skill, save bonus or the init bonus traits they are usually available in multiple trait categories so power wise complying with the rule is not really a detriment.

Despite the stated roleplaying broadening intent of the rule you can fairly easily get closely paired concepts for traits from two trait categories. I essentially doubled up on sociability with my latest wizard who took human racial trait World Traveller (diplomacy as a class skill with a +1 trait bonus) and Clever Word Play (int instead of cha for diplomacy) which made for a mechanically decent face character from the get go.

[Zwordsman]

Spring board question.

I've had it explained differently by two different GMs.
The two traits you start with must be from different ones.
but the feat additional traits, i've had one gm say thats a "feat trait" so it's ok to double dip categories (but the two traits from the feat must still be different than each other. but they could be the same category as one of the traits you started out with) Their thought process was that feats are used to do things normally unable; such as same feat categories.

(he also thought it was the kinda feat you could take repeatidly, but he also let us take dodge repeatidly (i dunno if that's works either? Dodge bonus stacks and no where that we noticed said feats could only be taken once, its just that most feats can't work with itself unlike dodge)

then I'd had a different gm say it still applies "must always be different category"

[Kydeem de'Morcaine]

I would but it has never come up. I don't think I've ever had a player ask for 2 from the same category.

I would probably allow 2 from the same category if it made sense (street urchin combined with rich parents would get a no). But if JJB wants to use his 2 traits, draw back, and the additional traits feat to have these 5 combat traits cause they fit together for this zoomy loop hole where...
Just no.

like if I guy wants to make a crossblooded sorc with draconic and abyssal. I would probably allow both the draconic and fiendish traits. It makes sense for the PC and isn't really game breaking.

But like I said, I've never had anyone ask.

[PathlessBeth]

Zwordsman wrote:

Spring board question.

I've had it explained differently by two different GMs.
The two traits you start with must be from different ones.
but the feat additional traits, i've had one gm say thats a "feat trait" so it's ok to double dip categories (but the two traits from the feat must still be different than each other. but they could be the same category as one of the traits you started out with) Their thought process was that feats are used to do things normally unable; such as same feat categories.

(he also thought it was the kinda feat you could take repeatidly, but he also let us take dodge repeatidly (i dunno if that's works either? Dodge bonus stacks and no where that we noticed said feats could only be taken once, its just that most feats can't work with itself unlike dodge)

then I'd had a different gm say it still applies "must always be different category"

The core rules do say

Quote:

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

, so that is pretty clear by RAW. Some GMs (myself included) occasionally mix up the actual rules with their personal house rules, so it's usually a good idea to be cautious of taking someone's statement of the rules for granted unless they are your GM (in which case their house rules trump the normal rules) or unless it is accompanied by a quote from the rules. That applies to the rules forum too--people sometimes give "rules" answers without checking the rules first:)

As to the OP:
1. Usually no, I just don't use traits at all. The few times I have included traits in a game it hasn't come up (as Kydeem said). Maybe if I used traits more often in long running games, it might come up, and then I'd have to decide whether to use it.
2. No, none of the existing traits are strong enough to break the game.

[blahpers]

blahpers wrote:

Aratrok wrote:

1) No.

2) No.

I haven't really seen traits ever be defining to people's backgrounds. I see them as a cute way to round out a character and hit a concept more easily with different classes, mostly due to class skills. The categories don't really matter to us, so we don't track it.

If players choose traits solely for mechanical benefits, then they're probably going to get little in the way of background from them unless they're the kind of players that prefer to derive mechanics from RP rather than the other way around.

...I think I got that totally backwards. I should get more sleep.

[Karui Kage]

1) Do people generally really keep track of this?
Yes

2) Is it gamebreaking big if you don't?
No

Most characters only have two traits at character creation, so keeping track isn't very difficult.

[Mark Hoover]

Yes, I keep track and work directly with the players on the traits they pick. As double-barreled J mentioned above, I keep an eye on it more for story than for game balance. I only run home games though so...

I didn't know there were some APs that hand out 5 traits??!!!

This helps explain why some of my players when I rattle off my mantra: "20 pt buy... 150 GP... 2 traits..." give me the stinkeye when working on these.

[Pan]

Mark Hoover wrote:

Yes, I keep track and work directly with the players on the traits they pick. As double-barreled J mentioned above, I keep an eye on it more for story than for game balance. I only run home games though so...

I didn't know there were some APs that hand out 5 traits??!!!

This helps explain why some of my players when I rattle off my mantra: "20 pt buy... 150 GP... 2 traits..." give me the stinkeye when working on these.

That is pretty much my starting standard too. Mark out of curiosity what are your players expecting the starting parameters to be?

[Mark Hoover]

2 standard traits, 1 campaign trait. Since all of my stuff is homebrewed and I sort of make up the details of the campaigns after a couple adventures, I don't really ever HAVE campaign traits made up so it never occured to me to offer them. I'm getting the impression though that the 3 of 4 players in my current group who usually play APs feel a bit short-changed.

[Pan]

Mark Hoover wrote:

2 standard traits, 1 campaign trait. Since all of my stuff is homebrewed and I sort of make up the details of the campaigns after a couple adventures, I don't really ever HAVE campaign traits made up so it never occured to me to offer them. I'm getting the impression though that the 3 of 4 players in my current group who usually play APs feel a bit short-changed.

3 traits with 20 pt buy and they feel short changed?

[Mark Hoover]

Pan wrote:

Mark Hoover wrote:

2 standard traits, 1 campaign trait. Since all of my stuff is homebrewed and I sort of make up the details of the campaigns after a couple adventures, I don't really ever HAVE campaign traits made up so it never occured to me to offer them. I'm getting the impression though that the 3 of 4 players in my current group who usually play APs feel a bit short-changed.

3 traits with 20 pt buy and they feel short changed?

No, I wasn't clear. I don't give them a 3rd trait. I give them only 2 traits, a 20 pt buy, and 150 GP, kind of like starting off in PFS.

It never occurred to me that some APs start you off with 3, 4 or even 5 traits. I started a thread here to discuss this and other freebies handed out to players over the course of a campaign.