Great trait. Great enough to make most other traits dubious choices, in fact.
But that's not why I'm here. I'm here because I'm confused as to why it is called reactionary.
That doesn't have anything to do with what the trait does, like at all.
It sounds like it should be giving a bonus to diplomacy checks when arguing that change is badwrongfun, but really, a character's political beliefs is a pretty weird thing to describe with a trait - those are usually reserved for things you're able to do, like being more stealthy.
The proposed fluff is all wrong too. Bullying and reflexes don't have anything to do with reactionary beliefs.
What gives?
My guess is, like "pantheism," the designers were confused by what the word sounds like it means, in this case, someone with quick reactions, and didn't bother actually looking it up in the dictionary.
Still, it does give a GM who doesn't want PCs abusing it an excuse to limit it by saying that if you are going to play a character with this trait, you have to be a member of the Moral Majority . . . .
My guess is, like "pantheism," the designers were confused by what the word sounds like it means, in this case, someone with quick reactions, and didn't bother actually looking it up in the dictionary.
Huh. That's dumb. Someone really thought that 'reactionary' meant 'reactive-y'? Wouldn't the editors pick up on that? It sounds really jarring to me, basically (and the analogy isn't perfect, language barrier here, sorry) like they wrote 'republican', and want it to read 'quick'. Is it any better to a first-language english speaker?
Maybe I guess reactionary and reactive are pretty close. Still dumb, but there you go.
Still, it does give a GM who doesn't want PCs abusing it an excuse to limit it by saying that if you are going to play a character with this trait, you have to be a member of the Moral Majority . . . .
The punishment for membership in said majority is death by retired elven warrior squad.
An ability and it's name don't always match up... take Prone Shooter for example.
An ability and it's name don't always match up... take Prone Shooter for example.
Well, that one has another reason to not do what it says on the tin.
While yes they completely made up the definition it does make some sense - the average American probably doesn't even know the real, political definition and directly puts it together as reaction at the Latin suffix ary (not that they'd know that either it's subconscious) to mean "reacts fast" or "has better reactions."
Okay. It only sounds stupid to second language english speakers then. Personally, I don't think of the two words as remotely similar, but I guess that's because I'm translating while reading.
"Reaction" is pretty close to the meaning of initiative as it's used in pathfinder, so that makes sense.
An ability and it's name don't always match up... take Prone Shooter for example.
Yes, but that one was meant to match up, and then they failed when trying to remember the rules.
Reactionary was apparently meant to match up too, but then they failed to know the actual meaning of the word.
Different case entirely, and neither is by design.
While yes they completely made up the definition it does make some sense - the average American probably doesn't even know the real, political definition and directly puts it together as reaction at the Latin suffix ary (not that they'd know that either it's subconscious) to mean "reacts fast" or "has better reactions."Okay. It only sounds stupid to second language english speakers then. Personally, I don't think of the two words as remotely similar, but I guess that's because I'm translating while reading.
For what it's worth, it sounds stupid to me, too, and I generally dislike the trait because of how vastly superior it is to other traits.
Yes they just mistook reactionary for reactive.
On another note, while thinking about this, it occurred to me that the person who attacks first should get like +5 to initiative. Because it IS about reacting to things, and how could you possibly have equal chances to hit first in response to noticing somebody else already starting to attack as you would initiating the attack yourself? That doesn't make any sense.
If somebody else attacks first, you necessarily must have lost out on [however much time they've spent on the action] + [reaction time] + [your own action planning time] compared to them.
This would also help deal with the issue of bad guy monologues... and make weak sneaking classes better! Sounds good all around to me.
You've more or less just described the surprise round mechanic.
Anyway, 'who attacks first' makes sense within the context of the game, but has little resemblence to what would happen in the real world.
In sword combat, parries are strikes, or at least used as setups for the opportunity to strike. The line between who's attacking and who's defending at which time is really thin.