| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, why get rid of the few you don't like when you can just dump the whole system. Just think of how many games they've saved from the horribly powerful ability to automatically stabilize a dying creature merely by touching it or gaining Int to heal instead of Wis...
The list of trait is already silly huge and will only continue to balloon. I have no desire to read/adjudicate each one and have seen several that are straight up no goes. I'd way rather set the parameters for character creation tightly than have to take something away mid game that slipped by me.
Way to go magical lineage you ruined it for everyone.
That being said if someone wants a genuinely harmless little tack on ability because they think it would be cool and add a nice heaping of flavor to the character then I'm open to discussing it and working something out.
Finally traits are sold as a fantastic way to differentiate characters and their backgrounds with tiny little bonus... funny how many characters out there are reactionary due to their backgrounds.
- Torger
It's not out of line for a newer GM to take Traits off the table to start. It's fewer modifiers off core stats and easier to keep the players honest/on track.
As the runner of my own campaign world, I still have to go through and line-item greenlight a lot of character creation options. I don't mind caster-level traits to help out multiclass hybrids, but I'm also well aware of what it can do to with pure hybrids and casters.
One of my first PF arguments was before I picked up PF, about Chicken Infested. I quickly found out that my prospective player insisted on not only infinite free-action chickens, but that it was a core trait. Needless to say, I knew that converting to PF was going to require thorough comprehension of the rules, and likely overruling of many.
Then there was the arguments over diety-less clerics and unaligned paladins and I realized I wasn't going to figure out just how far the bunghole d20 fantasy had gone without seeing RAW myself.
End result: Whitelists are good and nip a lot of problems in the bud. I find players that roll with the dice are better than ones that insist on starting Nat19+1. I personally don't find them of any value whatsoever beyond optimization.
I still randomly reward players based on their play quirks, sometimes inventing new stuff like Smart Ass (roll ALL trained knowledge skills as a standard action). I typically also allow one extra skill point per level specifically for a Knowledge or Profession skill relevant to their class, since I want them to engage with those skills a little more often than they're used to.
The list of trait is already silly huge and will only continue to balloon. I have no desire to read/adjudicate each one and have seen several that are straight up no goes. I'd way rather set the parameters for character creation tightly than have to take something away mid game that slipped by me.
Way to go magical lineage you ruined it for everyone.
I've seen about a handful of traits that people have gone OMG it's too powerful. If a list of 5 traits is too big to go through, this might be the wrong game for you. You only have to go through new material to note the ones you don't like in a new book so it's not like you are going to be spending hours doing it. It's no different than going through the new book and looking to see if equipment, feats or spells are to your liking. You're already going through the book so do you expect anyone to think going through the traits is a huge burden?
If you don't like traits, that's cool but just say that. Just don't pretend a few strong trait options makes them super hard to go through. You can go to a site like d20pfsrd or archives of nethys and skim through the entire list of traits in no time. It doesn't take more than a glance to see the maybe 10% that aren't some variety of class skill with bonus. Look those over and write down ones you don't like.
And I should tell you, I don't think I've ever had a character with reactionary. Looking at my last few characters I've had Two Worlds, Inner Beauty, Student of Philosophy, Trifler, Naturally Gifted, Unscathed, Secret Revolutionary, Adopted(almost human), Muscle of the Society, Indomitable Faith and Magic Lineage(Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser). The only one I've heard people think is powerful that I took was Magic Lineage(Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser) and I used it to empower the healing on my Eidolon. Maybe you're playing with the wrong set of people is you keep seeing reactionary.
|
The intention behind traits are often not followed by optimizers. I too often see myself picking up a trait (such as "bruising intellect") for more build reasons than background reasons. However, one GM of mine has us roll randomly from the categories of our choosing at character creation for traits, with rerolls when the trait has nothing to do with our character. We also roll randomly on the flaws list. Then, we are allowed to take the additional traits feat if we want to (the random traits don't affect which traits we can pick with that feat). I like his system. (Oh, and PRD traits only).
Of course, this DM also requires a character background survey to be filled out before you roll your character. Else, he generates a random background for you. But he's also willing to work with you if you have a trait that is very relevant to your background, say the harvester feat for a character who has profession: hunter, or some such as that.
With this system, reactionary becomes something you have to pay a feat for, as well as magical lineage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's no different than going through the new book and looking to see if equipment, feats or spells are to your liking. You're already going through the book so do you expect anyone to think going through the traits is a huge burden?
If you don't like traits, that's cool but just say that. Just don't pretend a few strong trait options makes them super hard to go through. You can go to a site like d20pfsrd or archives of nethys and skim through the entire list of traits in no time. It doesn't take more than a glance to see the maybe 10% that aren't some variety of class skill with bonus. Look those over and write down ones you don't like.
And I should tell you, I don't think I've ever had a character with reactionary. Looking at my last few characters I've had Two Worlds, Inner Beauty, Student of Philosophy, Trifler, Naturally Gifted, Unscathed, Secret Revolutionary, Adopted(almost human), Muscle of the Society, Indomitable Faith and Magic Lineage(Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser). The only one I've heard people think is powerful that I took was Magic Lineage(Rejuvenate Eidolon, Lesser) and I used it to empower the healing on my Eidolon. Maybe you're playing with the wrong set of people is you keep seeing reactionary.
Which I don't do. I skim new books when I get them and delve into specific bits and pieces of them when I feel like it. If I felt like I was required to read and develop an opinion on even everything in even just the Core RPG line I would never have it in me to DM. I'm simply not that interested in learning the minutia of every new rule and how it impacts every other area of the game. Standing rule is if it's not out of the CRB ask me about it. The answer is usually yes, and if not it gets added to the ban list.
So perhaps I should rephrase, after a quick skim I didn't feel traits add enough to the game to make it worth my time to keep up with them or even read them. No one has yet missed them or even asked about them. So by that metric I was correct. It wasn't worth my time.
Great, you've never had a character with reactionary. You must admit it gets suggested for an alarming number of characters when ideas get brought up here. And with good reason it's pretty much awesome sauce for every character ever.
and I don't see reactionary ever, because traits don't get used in games I run or play in. Which is perfect for me and the people I play with.
- Torger
Baby. Bath water. Whoooosh!!!
Rather than ban traits outright, you could just veto the ones that you don't approve of as they come up. That way you don't have to comb through any books, your players do all the work. You were going to look over the character anyway (I hope) so that's a great time to say no to the traits that don't meet your approval. Make them choose something else at that point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With this system, reactionary becomes something you have to pay a feat for, as well as magical lineage.
It's not just about getting them for free, although that's certainly part of it.
It's about "do I want it to raise the bar on maximum possible initiative modifier by 10%?"
Or in the case of Magical Lineage "do I want to open the door on metamagic shenanigans?"
Generally the answer to those questions, is for me, No. It's yes for a lot of people and that's cool.
- Torger
|
^ He's apparently been DM'ing for 20 years... You'd think that could prepare him for anything players could throw at him. Two of the party members actually helped create 3.0/3.5 D&D as well... and they are the ones that just Bull Rush into a fight and expect to not die... XD
Well, that sounds like my own Modus Operandi.
Simplistic execution isn't necessarily indicative of a lack of system mastery. Knowing enough about the system to be able to charge in guns blazing without putting yourself in extreme danger is good enough, especially if you sort of like doing that.Heck, it's worked out most of the time for myself. Except for the occasional save-or-die ruining the plan or lack thereof.
More on-topic: I've forgotten to add traits to my characters on occasion, and I didn't really notice. Some are certainly strong, and there's definitely an urge to min-max with generic traits such as Reactionary, but in my experience, I and my players tend to take lesser traits for flavor, and put most of our crunch in our builds elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Baby. Bath water. Whoooosh!!!
Rather than ban traits outright, you could just veto the ones that you don't approve of as they come up. That way you don't have to comb through any books, your players do all the work. You were going to look over the character anyway (I hope) so that's a great time to say no to the traits that don't meet your approval. Make them choose something else at that point.
Or I could just not deal with the optional subsystem and have one less thing to audit.
- Torger
Baby. Bath water. Whoooosh!!!
Rather than ban traits outright, you could just veto the ones that you don't approve of as they come up. That way you don't have to comb through any books, your players do all the work. You were going to look over the character anyway (I hope) so that's a great time to say no to the traits that don't meet your approval. Make them choose something else at that point.
Or I could just not deal with the optional subsystem and have one less thing to audit.
- Torger
I was just thinking that your players might enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate that traits are not just about +2 initiative. And pointing out that vetting traits is not nearly as laborious as you make it sound, IMHO. As long as everyone is having fun, to each his own. As others have said, aside from a few outliers, traits do not make a whole ton of difference either way.
I would miss bolstering my skill lists. Of 9 PFS characters, only 2 have reactionary but several have a trait to gain Perception. I'd also miss the traits to boost saves.
Which I don't do. I skim new books when I get them and delve into specific bits and pieces of them when I feel like it. If I felt like I was required to read and develop an opinion on even everything in even just the Core RPG line I would never have it in me to DM. I'm simply not that interested in learning the minutia of every new rule and how it impacts every other area of the game. Standing rule is if it's not out of the CRB ask me about it. The answer is usually yes, and if not it gets added to the ban list.
So perhaps I should rephrase, after a quick skim I didn't feel traits add enough to the game to make it worth my time to keep up with them or even read them. No one has yet missed them or even asked about them. So by that metric I was correct. It wasn't worth my time.
Great, you've never had a character with reactionary. You must admit it gets suggested for an alarming number of characters when ideas get brought up here. And with good reason it's pretty much awesome sauce for every character ever.
and I don't see reactionary ever, because traits don't get used in games I run or play in. Which is perfect for me and the people I play with.
- Torger
Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do as GM. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
It really doesn't add that much to the game, especially if the GM is willing to adjust class skills based on written character background. They were always supposed to be a minor part of the game and should be considered completely optional.
As a player, the one thing I would miss is Magical Knack since I like to play multiclass casters.
aside from a few outliers, traits do not make a whole ton of difference either way.
And when I see that something isn't going to make a whole ton of difference either way my question is "why add it?" Rather than "why not add it?" Lots of work is born of many small things that are each a little work.
I, and the people I play with find that pathfinder has more than enough character customization bits to fiddle with without them.
But as you say
As long as everyone is having fun, to each his own.
and I assure you they are :D
- Torger
I have a DM that won't allow traits at all because they can "break the game"... Is this something that'll ruin character customization, or is this not a huge deal?
It's like a +1 or maybe some extra class skills.
We play with them.
They are not critical.
Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do as GM. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.
It really doesn't add that much to the game, especially if the GM is willing to adjust class skills based on written character background. They were always supposed to be a minor part of the game and should be considered completely optional.
As a player, the one thing I would miss is Magical Knack since I like to play multiclass casters.
Thanks ^_^
Second line there touches on something that's worth mentioning. I've never played with a hardcore RAW DM who wasn't willing to sit down and have a chat about bending the rules a little bit if the character you really want to play just isn't quite coming together because of a minor thing in the rules.
I suppose if that were my primary game I'd have a lot more appreciation/respect for traits.
- Torger
I wouldn't worry too much about not having traits unless you plan to be a multiclassed caster. That said, I really like traits. I've been able to add a lot of personality to my PCs with traits, and I think the little bits of background they give you for why you have a certain class skill or other bonus can help flesh out a PC's background.
I do think that the extreme popularity of the Reactionary trait implies there's a balance issue with it though I've yet to take it myself. On the other hand, I've taken Magical Lineage with two PCs in the past, but neither one ended up getting much practical use out of it. In fact, taking a feat to support the trait actually ended up being kind of a waste for one of them. Intensified Thundering Drums sounded like a really cool idea, but...
@boring7 - I took a moment to look up "Finding Haleen", and I think you may have misrepresented it a bit since you gain an extra hit point or skill point from your favored class every level, not just "a sum total of 1 hit point or skill point that you would not have otherwise gotten".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it were up to me, each and every one of my characters would have Inner Beauty.
Yes, they are all Shelynites.
Don't judge me.
I imagined "Don't judge me" coming out of your avatar's mouth and it was super adorable :3
I guess that inner beauty trait paid off.
- Torger
That sound right in line with the expected power of them. "In most cases, a new PC should gain two traits, effectively gaining what amounts to a bonus feat at character creation." They are expecting 2 traits = feat. If Additional Traits was never contemplated, then traits would be too weak. If it's always picked, then they are too strong. Having one person take a feat for traits sounds like your group is counting them just about right.Traits are powerful enough that one of the players in our group gave up a Feat to get Additional Traits.
And my brother-sister team (Druid & Rogue) with Kin-Bond has saved them a few time with re-rolls on ST's to make up for the bad REF save of the Druid and bad WIL save for the Rogue.
If you did not get the free traits I guess the feat would be taken more often. But most of the time two are just enough to get what you want. Or a third via a drawback.
Taking additional traits often means you have to choose one trait you don't really want because of the limit of one trait per category.
If you did not get the free traits I guess the feat would be taken more often. But most of the time two are just enough to get what you want. Or a third via a drawback.
Taking additional traits often means you have to choose one trait you don't really want because of the limit of one trait per category.
With so many categories to pick from, it should be rare to not find a second one you want. Basic (Combat), Basic (Faith), Basic (Magic), Basic (Social), Campaign, Cosmic, Equipment, Faction, Mount, Race, Region and Religion.
So perhaps I should rephrase, after a quick skim I didn't feel traits add enough to the game to make it worth my time to keep up with them or even read them. No one has yet missed them or even asked about them. So by that metric I was correct. It wasn't worth my time.
That's cool. Your first post made it seem that it was because it would take a huge amount of time to work with, and that's what I was disagreeing with. As I said, it's cool if you don't use them because you don't like them (or don't think they add to the game).
Great, you've never had a character with reactionary. You must admit it gets suggested for an alarming number of characters when ideas get brought up here. And with good reason it's pretty much awesome sauce for every character ever.
I don't think characters put up on here are a good thing to look at to figure out the average character. Most often they will be optimized to the max for their role, so non-skill monkeys will see combat effectiveness buffed. Hence, reactionary.
So perhaps I should rephrase, after a quick skim I didn't feel traits add enough to the game to make it worth my time to keep up with them or even read them. No one has yet missed them or even asked about them. So by that metric I was correct. It wasn't worth my time.That's cool. Your first post made it seem that it was because it would take a huge amount of time to work with, and that's what I was disagreeing with. As I said, it's cool if you don't use them because you don't like them (or don't think they add to the game).
Great, you've never had a character with reactionary. You must admit it gets suggested for an alarming number of characters when ideas get brought up here. And with good reason it's pretty much awesome sauce for every character ever.I don't think characters put up on here are a good thing to look at to figure out the average character. Most often they will be optimized to the max for their role, so non-skill monkeys will see combat effectiveness buffed. Hence, reactionary.
Fair enough, I apologize for any snark that may have permeated previous posts.
and I agree, it's not a good place to find average characters. It is however an amazing place to find the newest shiny super good option that you have to justify not taking rather than the other way around.
I loathe those options. Anytime I see something pop up on these boards more that a couple times as being amazing (especially but not exclusively for casters) I make a mental note to be wary of it.
Not a fan of the rising ceiling.
- Torger
|
I like the idea of personalized traits to better explain non-standard hobbies or life experiences that distinguish a fresh character from others within their class.
That said, I'd prefer a more generic system, like each PC getting 2 extra class skills of choice and a bonus to a certain type of roll.
With so many categories to pick from, it should be rare to not find a second one you want. Basic (Combat), Basic (Faith), Basic (Magic), Basic (Social), Campaign, Cosmic, Equipment, Faction, Mount, Race, Region and Religion.
If you did not get the free traits I guess the feat would be taken more often. But most of the time two are just enough to get what you want. Or a third via a drawback.
Taking additional traits often means you have to choose one trait you don't really want because of the limit of one trait per category.
With 2 free traits and a third from drawbacks it would be a fourth and a fifth when taking additional traits. That's why I said it would be more common without the free traits.
With 2 free traits and a third from drawbacks it would be a fourth and a fifth when taking additional traits. That's why I said it would be more common without the free traits.With so many categories to pick from, it should be rare to not find a second one you want. Basic (Combat), Basic (Faith), Basic (Magic), Basic (Social), Campaign, Cosmic, Equipment, Faction, Mount, Race, Region and Religion.
If you did not get the free traits I guess the feat would be taken more often. But most of the time two are just enough to get what you want. Or a third via a drawback.
Taking additional traits often means you have to choose one trait you don't really want because of the limit of one trait per category.
I find that a lot of DM's don't allow the drawbacks, so for me it'd be 3rd and 4th. I've always found myself wishing I had more picks. Heck, you can 4 traits JUST an reducing your ACP. [Armor Expert/Basic (Combat), Sargavan Guard/Region, Serpent Runner/Campaign, Steady Strength/Religion] With -7's for the heaviest armors, the combined traits don't even reduce it to 0 with all 4. Heck, even mithril leaves a -1 on dex skills...
Let's be honest about it, we're talking 3-5% at best. Look around the last "how high can you get your initiative" threads.Really, I only took Reactionary when I had a trait slot suddenly freed up (via gaining Perception as a class skill, which I didn't think would happen) and didn't really know what to take with it. In hindsight I wish I hadn't. The same character later had the option to take Magical Lineage (she was awarded any trait off the Magic or Racial lists) and... I don't think I considered it for more than about five seconds. It didn't even hit my top five.
Which is kind of funny, because at this point, adding Lineage would mean Maximizing her spell of choice for free instead of Empowering.
Personally I find traits-- including the metamagic reducers-- to be rather overrated in terms of power. Finding Haleen is one of the best around in the mind of my group and... +1 HP/lvl, +1 skill point/lvl. Okay? That might save a character's life one day I suppose, but free Toughness isn't going to break anything and skill points... well, there's a reason they're not held in high regard. Don't get me wrong, I think Haleen is powerful as far as traits go (probably top five), but that has a lot to do with me not finding traits powerful.
The metamagic reducers can do some serious good on a Magus... by turning a first-level spell into a single-target Fireball. Or you can skip them, and have a second-level single-target Fireball, and the difference is basically irrelevant come level... what, nine?
Or you can drop both reducers on Fireball and run a straight blaster-caster, which... again, okay? Even its own guide points out that this is not something you do for power, it's something you do for fun. If traits have turned a build from "total waste of time" to "fun, and viable, but still suboptimal", then to me that's a win.
The trait I think I'm actually most leery of is Armor Master and its kinfolk, for letting you walk around in a Mithril Breastplate you're not proficient in without penalty... and even then, I pointed that option out to a player of mine.
That said, to each his own. I understand that I like higher-power games than what even traditional PF offers, and that things I brush off as par for the course aren't necessarily so for others (for example, my GM allows Arcane Thesis. Magical Lineage starts to look pretty terrible by comparison, because it's /so/ much less than "half of Thesis").
Sorry, I didn't mean percent as in percent of the total initiative modifier. I meant it as in 1d20 = 5% - 100%. It's a short hand I use that makes comparisons easier for me sometimes. I definitely could have and should have been more clear.
That being said, the "It's just a drop in the bucket argument" holds no water with me. They're all just drops in the bucket. Every new option they add to get a higher initiative, if it stacks with the majority of the previous options is another drop in the bucket. The whole bucket is made up of drops. This is one of them. It raises the bar on something I don't feel needs the bar raised.
As to metamagic reduction, I've seen a magus in play without them. The magus was fine. A little bursty but even when he wasn't bursting he was solidly contributing.
This board constantly complains that casters are so broken in pathfinder, but when you start to take away even their smallest of toys people inevitably line up with the awwww c'mon it's not a big deal defense. Again, drop in a bucket filled with nothing but a lot of drops. I really don't understand how people think the broken caster phenomenon is to be fixed without taking away some of their more egregious toys.
Meteamagic cost reduction be it in the form of rods, traits, w/e is one of their more egregious toys IMHO.
I do agree that blaster casting is suboptimal and that metamagic cost reduction does help them out. But to my personal game design sense the way to help blasters should be to add options that only help blasters. Not to add options that help blasters but also give their already broken cousins another leg up.
And absolutely to each their own, There's no doubt in my mind that there are games out there for which traits are an enjoyable addition, and some games out there that don't notice a power increase from even the most powerful of traits.
Mine is neither of those games but if yours is and it's working for you then excellent :D
- Torger
I'm not a fan of "the rising ceiling" either, but in general I'd prefer to nerf specific stuff I consider potentially problematic like Dazing Spell rather than banning the entire book it came from. That can lead to point by point debates regarding what truly is or isn't unbalanced though, and I certainly can't blame other DMs for deciding they'd rather not deal with it.
Unfortunately even the Core book contains some stuff many DMs might consider a little over the top. Simulacrum got mentioned upthread though since I've never seen it in play or read it carefully I can't offer much of an opinion on that one.
in general I'd prefer to nerf specific stuff I consider potentially problematic like Dazing Spell rather than banning the entire book it came from.
Unfortunately even the Core book contains some stuff many DMs might consider a little over the top. Simulacrum got mentioned upthread though since I've never seen it in play or read it carefully I can't offer much of an opinion on that one.
Generally I do as well but it's my opinion that traits don't add enough to the game that I can't already do with a little generous rule bending to make it worth my time to adjudicate them.
And absolutely, the CRB sets the ceiling too high for some things. Simulacrum is an excellent example. But if you taking the CRB and tweak/ban the problematic stuff, then consider outside content on a case by case basis it is, for me, way less of a headache than operating on the assumption that everything is fine and then trying to balance that mess.
- Torger
If he thinks traits break the game, he better not allow clerics, druids, wizards, summoners, witches and a metric crapload of feats and spells.
Also, just saying 'I ban traits' is lazy. Banning particular traits he thinks are over the top, sure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he thinks traits break the game, he better not allow clerics, druids, wizards, summoners, witches and a metric crapload of feats and spells.
Also, just saying 'I ban traits' is lazy. Banning particular traits he thinks are over the top, sure.
I wouldn't call it lazy. In my opinion, it would only be lazy if he banned them without any consideration.
He has given it consideration. He has decided to spend his time on other things than reviewing every trait to figure out which may be broken and documenting which are or are not acceptable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If he thinks traits break the game, he better not allow clerics, druids, wizards, summoners, witches and a metric crapload of feats and spells.
Also, just saying 'I ban traits' is lazy. Banning particular traits he thinks are over the top, sure.
Is not using Called Shots or downtime rules "lazy"? They're all explicitly optional systems.
I disallow traits in most games (I had players pick a single campaign trait for Iron Gods since it helps put them in the story) not because they're broken, but because I find them unnecessary "crunch" for things that should just stay backstory fluff.
To me, whether or not my character was bullied as a kid or is religious does not need and should not have any sort of extra +1 tied to it.
I disallow traits in most games (I had players pick a single campaign trait for Iron Gods since it helps put them in the story) not because they're broken, but because I find them unnecessary "crunch" for things that should just stay backstory fluff.
To me, whether or not my character was bullied as a kid or is religious does not need and should not have any sort of extra +1 tied to it.
On the one hand having backstory fluff give slight modifiers to things sounds kinda cool an even makes a certain intrinsic sense but the point at which its gets really distasteful for me isn't, "my character was bullied as a kid which gives him a +1 to _______." But rather "my character was bullied as a kid because I want them to have a +1 in ________."
Which leads me to the question of "what if they were fluff neutral and were just crunch?" Which leads me back to "why did I need more crunch in the first place?" Which leads me back to nah, not gonna bother, game runs just fine w/o em.
- Torger
*edit* which dovetails nicely with not want to be on the look out for the next magical lineage.
We've never had any issue with traits breaking anything. Then again we don't allow campaign traits unless they are from the campaign we are playing. Still, rerolling one save per day hardly seems broken considering an entire party can be rerolling every save if they want to and have a witch or shaman handy. Also having one spell that has lessened metamagic costs doesn't sound onerous either, the really good spells you could put it on mean you may never live to see the day you can actually use the trait. Or are DM's no longer killing anyone ever? Did I miss a memo?
I'm honestly curious: what exactly are the metamagic reducers doing that matters on a non-Blaster build?
I ask because I've only ever even heard about them being used elsewhere once, in this thread to help Empower Lesser Rejuvenate Eidolon (which honestly kinda confuses me as to why one would do that, as the numbers look terrible to me and one can actually argue that it adds nothing, so I'm not seeing a power concern). So while I can see your argument in theory... I'm not sure that the reducer traits do ever help anyone but blasters (rods are a different story; everybody wants a Quicken Rod at the least).
You don't think there are non blaster spells that can benefit from metamagic?
You don't think being able to apply them with no spell level increase is a net gain in power?
If that's true then ok... but we have very different thoughts on power levels.
- Torger
I was asking you, directly, where you think this issue would come up.
I don't have specific examples because
A) I don't use traits
and
B) The following thought experiment was sufficient for me.
Pick your choice of 1st-4th level battlefield control spell, that typically wrecks encounters already.
Do I want casters adding free metamagic to that spell?
No I do not.
- Torger
*edit* even if it's something as simple as this spell's range was close, but now thanks to enlarge I can use it outside of normal charge range for no cost.
Net increase in power.
Casters getting more toys.
Mmm. Good old Empowered Snowball.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
even if it's something as simple as this spell's range was close, but now thanks to enlarge I can use it outside of normal charge range for no cost.
So... literally what I said in the first place.So while I can see your argument in theory... I'm not sure that the reducer traits do ever help anyone but blasters (rods are a different story; everybody wants a Quicken Rod at the least).
Really?
I provided, with very little time and thought put into it, an example of a way in which a reducer trait could help a non blaster wizard.
It's definitively a net increase in power over not having the trait. Is it a huge one? Probably not?
But my argument has never been that it has to be huge. It's been that casters don't need anymore increases in power large or small.
Or if you prefer stop giving casters even more power.
and to step outside the scope of my argument and address what seems to be your argument, I've absolutely no doubt that someone could do something OP as hell with metamagic reducers and control spells. Do I know what that is off the top of my head? No. Am I going to spend the time digging for it/coming up with it when it would serve no purpose other than to win this argument? Also no.
But again that's irrelevant to my position which has always been net increase to caster power bad.
- Torger
You don't think there are non blaster spells that can benefit from metamagic?You don't think being able to apply them with no spell level increase is a net gain in power?
If that's true then ok... but we have very different thoughts on power levels.
- Torger
Sure, but it's only 1 spell. I don't think getting cheaper metamagic on a single spell is a big deal. Especially when a magic item lets you do it on any spell 3 times a day.
Sure, but it's only 1 spell. I don't think getting cheaper metamagic on a single spell is a big deal. Especially when a magic item lets you do it on any spell 3 times a day.
You don't think there are non blaster spells that can benefit from metamagic?You don't think being able to apply them with no spell level increase is a net gain in power?
If that's true then ok... but we have very different thoughts on power levels.
- Torger
Metamagic rods are indeed a much bigger problem. They drive me nuts. I don't care if you had to spend 200k on it a 9th level spell should never be able to be quickened in level 1-20 play. </rant>
Even still I point you up thread to my drop in the bucket stance. New options that make casters even a little more powerful still make casters more powerful. And this is a game where a bunch of little options are often added together to create one ridiculous unstoppable big option.
I do not want the ceiling on caster power to be even a millimeter higher than it already is.
- Torger
I ask because I've only ever even heard about them being used elsewhere once, in this thread to help Empower Lesser Rejuvenate Eidolon (which honestly kinda confuses me as to why one would do that, as the numbers look terrible to me and one can actually argue that it adds nothing, so I'm not seeing a power concern).
It was a character focused in keeping her eidolon up and alive with a minimum of healing options available. It allowed her to use her 1st and 2nd level spells to heal. Awesome powerful it wasn't but it worked for the group I was in.
I rather like traits -- in fact I think they're one of the better additions in the APG -- but I don't really not using them as a deal killer. Heck, that's probably a reason why I like them so much...for the most part, they're not unbalancing (ime).
Whether or not we call that broken is a different question, as is how that compares to the single-spell issue.
It's absolutely is a reasonable question too and I fault no one for coming down ont he side of they're fine.
It's just a hard one because this is such a game of minute power increases coming together for a powerful whole.
If +12 in a thing is "too high to be reasonable" and a character has 12 different abilities that all grant +1 which of them are the broken ones? An analogy that isn't a 100% direct translation to the metamagic reducers but I feel it makes my point and numbers are easier to wrap heads around sometimes.
and I get it, I do. "It's just one little thing, I'm overacting" I totally understand where that response comes from.
Where my stance comes from is how much I hate having to take something away from a character once they're already in play. It's the second worst feeling ever. The worst feeling is watching a campaign I've poured time and effort into devolve into an unenjoyable mess that I'm not having fun running anymore.
Easiest way, for me to make sure that doesn't happen is to be strict about what is or isn't allowed from the get go in order to maintain reasonable power caps, but then to sit down and talk out a mutually agreeable solution if a player is having trouble making the character they want to under the restrictions.
- Torger