Do you use traits? If not do you use any replacements?
Do you have any favorite traits?
How many do you let the players have?
Do you use traits? If not do you use any replacements?
Do you have any favorite traits?
How many do you let the players have?
I love traits. I wish they went further like 5e backgrounds and give RP benefits (like sailors getting free passage on ships etc).
Unfortunately there are some traits that just become so good you might as well not use. If everyone has it, then nobody should have it....I am looking at you Reactionary.
My group who mainly play APs, require one campaign trait, one regular trait, and if you want another one use the drawback rules.
Do you use traits? If not do you use any replacements?
Do you have any favorite traits?
How many do you let the players have?
I love traits. I wish they went further like 5e backgrounds and give RP benefits (like sailors getting free passage on ships etc).
Unfortunately there are some traits that just become so good you might as well not use. If everyone has it, then nobody should have it....I am looking at you Reactionary.
My group who mainly play APs, require one campaign trait, one regular trait, and if you want another one use the drawback rules.
To be fair, there seems to be about 50 different traits that give +2 Init so it's bound to be popular.
Magical Lineage is another popular one that's super popular.one Campaign Trait, one regular trait and a third can be bought by a drawback is I think the rule for traits, it's what we use as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like using both Traits and Drawbacks for fleshing out backstories, and as the GM, I like bringing up someone's past at the WORST possible time ever. It can make for some pretty crazy stories, but it can also be a visceral/tangible thing to make your world feel alive at the same time.
One of my favorite "worst possible time ever incidents" was the PC's had just flushed out a Mind Flayer from the sewers and on to the street of a major city, and it was turning into a pretty hairy chase scene. All the sudden, the party runs into some thugs who the Bard owed a lot of money to (his backstory was that he was an illegitimately-conceived prince, so growing up he had plenty of money but could never show his face in xxxx kingdom or else. During his travels, he developed a bit of a gambling problem and currently owes money around the world to everyone and their brother). Anywho, these loanshark's bruisers show up and hold the Bard up by the ankles for a few minutes, and during the chaos the Mind Flayer got away.
They ended up tracking the Mind Flayer down in the next sesh though :P
My group has a rule - everyone gets 3 traits. You can give up those traits for a martial tradition even if you don't use spheres for the rest of the character. Either way, you can take up to 2 more traits by taking one drawback per trait.
I like traits, they can give some fun rp ideas. For one of my characters, I wanted to make Knowledge Religion a class skill so I took Child of the Temple. That inspired her backstory - her family being taken in by a church when they were forced to flee their homeland. I ended up giving her a level of cleric later but I only did that because it fit her backstory.
I love traits and Drawbacks, they really help fleshing out characters.
For traits i generally allow pretty much anything unless i find it way too overpowered. I also really don't care much about their names and their categories. In my campaign players can choose two traits and if the mechanics fit but the names don't, then i'm fine with it, characters don't know the names of their traits and feat either. No need to specifically be a wayang spellhunter to be talented with metamagic.
For Drawback i'm a bit more restrictive. I allow only one and the names kind of have to fit with the character trait too.
As for my personnal favorite traits :
Metamagic Master and Wayang spellhunter are amazing trait to have for any Magus or Blaster type build. Shaving off 2 level worth of metamagic on your favorite spell is insanely good.
I also like rich parent in low level campaign, you can invest in cool gear at first level, get some wands, scroll and start off with equipement a noble character would have.
I like them in general, but so many of them really don't offer benefits my players find useful. I do wish there were more to choose from, like the nigh infinite number of feats...lol
Too bad we don't get 1 at 1st and an additional one every even level(11 max) after that with an option for some kind of racial/kin/kith type trait/ability.
I do love the traits that make a skill a class skill w/ the additional +1.
I do love the traits that make a skill a class skill w/ the additional +1.
Well, you can become a collector with the regional exemplar trait. Take Additional Traits multiple times for more regional traits, and gain more class skills on top of that. Yes, I am aware that's not totally what you asked for.
To get to the initial questions: I use traits the RAW way. A PC gains two, three with a drawback, maybe one from a set of campaign traits. I like the extra customization, especially for details that are too small for a feat (new class skill etc.). However, I would have preferred more traits like "here are multiple mechanical benefits to choose from", to soften the artificial bond between flavor and mechanics. It's weird when half of all adventurers share the same trait, just because their players considered the mechanics too good to pass on...
I love traits. From a mechanical standpoint, from a narrative standpoint, and from a metanarrative standpoint.
From a mechanical standpoint they can cover holes in your class or give fun options for different character builds. We played a rogue-themed heist game and I played a Magus. Magi don't really have the best skillset for rogue-stuff, so I spent my 2 traits on getting new class skills, and then took the "extra traits" feat for another 2 class-skill traits . This turned my Magus into a very capable Rogue.
From a narrative standpoint they can give great options for a background. I made a Snake-Oil salesman with the "Well Provisioned Adventurer" trait so he could start with a small stock of goods to sell. I used the "Reckless" trait to inform my combat decisions, thus helping me play differently.
From a metanarrative standpoint I kind of love the ubiquitous nature of some traits and feats. A disproportionate number of "bullied" children decide that their best course of action is to leave home and never come back? Sounds likely to me. The children of great spellcasters inevitably end up casting spells, even if they spent their youth practicing with a sword? Checks out.
I think the whole thing is great.
It would of course be nice if they were better balanced; some are notoriously too good, and many are utter junk (situational tiny bonuses to something irrelevant). There are some interesting ones that are just too weak to bother with, even if they might be a great idea. And some traits are exactly the same as others, but worse.
Some traits are a feat tax on certain character concepts. Things like Dangerously Curious or Pragmatic Activator for low-Cha UMD users of the wrong class. This is fine, except for the arbitrary restrictions on traits...
I don't see the justification for limiting a character to one trait of each type (social, combat, faith, etc); it seems to me that a religious character (for example) is likely to have more than one faith trait. It's presumably for balance, but the same principle doesn't apply to feats. And anyway it's become redundant because many feats do the same thing (eg +2 initiative). And Adopted is just an oft-abused workaround for this anyway.
Unlike feats, traits are tied to a backstory. This is good and bad, in that it helps build a character, but it also restricts what story you can tell if you want a certain mechanical benefit. I'd prefer that there be a standard menu of trait effects (eg "X is a class skill, you get +1") without that restriction.
But overall, yeah, traits are good. Except for the banned ones and the junk.
I agree, I don't think you should be limited to one trait for each type.
I love the unscathed trait that increases all energy resistances by 2. We don't even get feats that do that.
I do love reactionary and any traits that give a static bonus to any one of your saves.
I'm all about traits. They're a nice small (but not insignificant) boosts to your character, which also helps explain a few things about them. I also like drawbacks because I think it adds some complexity to your character and provides a mechanical penalty to something from your backstory.
I have a character right now. He's a 17-year-old human spellscar oracle who has poor impulse control, and magic just goes haywire around him sometimes. He's for a custom campaign, and our GM told us to pick two traits. I chose Child of the Streets as he's almost always pickpocketing someone due to him and his brother surviving alone on the streets for the last seven years of his life. I also have Eye for the Wondrous. We fluff it that he just knows wonderous items when he sees them and knows what they are.
Both of these small bonuses have helped to drive the character many times.
I feel like if you have them, use them. I played a different game with a different player, and he had a drawback, which gave him a fear of open flames and a mechanical penalty around fire. He included the mechanical penalty when it applied. But he NEVER roleplayed the fear of fire. If he didn't tell us he had that drawback, I would have never known because he never played his character with that flaw. At least show concern when there's fire all around, and you need to move through it or straight up refuse to go near the fire. It adds some flair to your character.
However, I also agree that you shouldn't be limited to one trait for each type; sometimes, you want two combat traits or two faith traits.
Too bad we never got a book that collected all the traits.
Also would have liked some options for replacements.
Are there any traits you guys don't like?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any traits you guys don't like?
Wayang Spellhunter
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are there any traits you guys don't like?
Reactionary - the person who wrote it didn’t check their dictionary.
|
Are there any traits you guys don't like?
I don't like how there are SO many traits that it's almost always possible to find a better and worse version of the same mechanic. Especially when it comes to skills.
Let's see, I have one trait left and want to make Diplomacy a class skill. Oh, here's Influence in Ultimate Campaign! I can choose Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Sense Motive. I get a +1 trait bonus AND it is a class skill. Oh, wait. Here's Trustworthy, also in Ultimate Campaign! +1 trait bonus to Diplomacy, Diplomacy is a class skill, AND I get a +1 trait bonus on Bluff checks. They are both social traits, why would I ever take Influence?
It gets even worse when you look across books. Compare Cynic to Narrows Survivor.
Me and my group always get reincarnated since the GM allows us to be reincarnated and have something of our memory (manga style). Of course, unlike the bonus that Regularly grants gives us a +1 to a knowledge and +1 to a creation, knowledge, perform or profession, this trait is free to the 2 who are so at the first level and the heroic Which is increased by +1 for every 2 additional traits you have
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't use Traits at my table. In a game filled with so much crunchy minutiae, I'm looking for ways to streamline some of it, not add more. I can understand the basic concept that a +1 here or a special item there could help breathe life into a character, but I've never actually seen it firsthand. People who make rich, believable character I get invested in can and will do so without any help from the system, and those players who create characters that feel more like video game avatars need much more direction and assistance than something like a Trait will ever provide.
Then again, Accelerated Drinker showed me that drinking a potion should be a move action. So that's cool.
But wow, talk about a yawn of a trait if you're looking for something to add a little depth to your character. You could be a member of minor nobility, or have learned to survive your life on the streets, or...drink real fast. Yuck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a mechanical standpoint they can cover holes in your class or give fun options for different character builds.
That's what I like about them most - they really underpin the "nearly every class can do nearly everything" concept that I view as Pathfinder's biggest strength. "We need a Rogue to disable traps!" B!#@+, please - there're seven traits that make it a class skill, and one of them even makes it wisdom based!
I do wish there were more to choose from, like the nigh infinite number of feats...lol
"lol" indeed: My spreadsheet containing all traits counts 1697 traits, without campaign traits, mount traits, and drawbacks. The feat list shows 3072 feats.
Some traits are a feat tax on certain character concepts. Things like Dangerously Curious or Pragmatic Activator for low-Cha UMD users of the wrong class.
You must build hella weird characters if "can use UMD" qualifies as a character concept!
Are there any traits you guys don't like?Wayang Spellhunter
Seconded. 99.9% of people who take it do so to cheat.
Also, Adopted. Not in principle, but I hate that it grants an extra trait, and thus basically removes the restriction from race traits for no cost. It should just allow taking a race trait in the second trait slot.
The big problem with traits is that there's so much variable power packed into them. It really needed to be a smaller more curated list. Although you could make that argument for the entirety of PF1...
But I agree Adopted is also a problem. Why even bother if you can pick up this one trait that will let you pick up the traits normally restricted to certain races at no penalty or cost? You should have just said "these traits are common to *insert race* but anyone can use them if they have compatible "physiology".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adopted should be a drawback trait that gives self-esteem related issues for roleplay reasons and a mechanical detriment of having a minus whatever to cha-skills, but allows you access to any race-related trait.
I think adopted is a great trait tbh, because it enhances roleplay and provides endless interesting backstory possibilities.
Seconded. 99.9% of people who take it do so to cheat.Are there any traits you guys don't like?Wayang Spellhunter
As someone who actually like the trait, i'm curious. In what way do people generaly cheat?
Are there any traits you guys don't like?
There are some very nice traits that have very strict regional or other requirements. A couple of examples:
1) Two-World Magic (which lets you add a 0-level spell from another spell list to your class spell list) requires you to be from Sargava.
2) If you want to gain a damage bonus to unarmed strikes, you must take one of two traits that limit you to two locations in Tian Xia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seconded. 99.9% of people who take it do so to cheat.Are there any traits you guys don't like?Wayang SpellhunterAs someone who actually like the trait, i'm curious. In what way do people generaly cheat?
People would also take Magical Lineage to have the two effects stack and reduce metamagic cost by 2 levels.
It's not technically cheating, but as a GM or fellow player watching it happen at the table it leaves a very bad taste in your mouth.
Also, it's a Wayang specific trait (and ignoring adopted) Wayang aren't common. The prevalence of people with the Trait (and outright ignoring its origins) overall makes me hate it.
Are there any traits you guys don't like?There are some very nice traits that have very strict regional or other requirements. A couple of examples:
1) Two-World Magic (which lets you add a 0-level spell from another spell list to your class spell list) requires you to be from Sargava.
2) If you want to gain a damage bonus to unarmed strikes, you must take one of two traits that limit you to two locations in Tian Xia.
Yeah, there's a lot of region locked trait effects that don't make much sense.
|
|
Also, it's a Wayang specific trait (and ignoring adopted) Wayang aren't common. The prevalence of people with the Trait (and outright ignoring its origins) overall makes me hate it.
It's not actually a Wayang racial trait, it's a regional trait. You don't have to be a Wayang though you are supposed to come from Minata. It is phenomenal how many non-Wayang adventurers grew up on islands that were majority Wayang.
You grew up on one of the wayang-populated islands of Minata, and your use of magic while hunting has been a boon to you.
Having said that, I'm 100% in agreement with you on the strength of the trait being overpowered.
But Wayang Spellhunter gives reduction right out of the gate. When you take that and Magical Lineage you can start throwing around Empowered fireballs at 5th level instead of 9th, something that is way beyond the power baseline.
It's not that the players are "cheating" it's just that they are using it to break way beyond the expected power level.
Yeah, Wayang spellhunter is broken.
As someone who actually like the trait, i'm curious. In what way do people generaly cheat?
Trying to get an advantage that they know they aren't supposed to have. "" APG pg. 327 I have never seen Wayang Spellhunter been used or mentioned outside of stacking it with Magical Lineage.
@Claxon and Derklord
Oh then, i understand. Those traits are powerful, although i wouldn't call it cheating. It can definitely be cheesy though.
I do like them because they make fireball blaster a bit more viable with free empower. It's nice to have casters that aren't conjurer for a change. It's definitely strong in the first few tier of play, but it eventually fall off later.
As I said, it's not cheating in a strict understanding of the word.
But it is dishonest in my opinion if a player takes both Wayang Spellhunter and another trait which modifies metamagic cost and stacks them and doesn't recognize how big of a power boost that is. Way more than what a trait should allow.
If I still ran PF1 games (I don't run any Paizo games right now) I would probably just ban traits that adjust metamagic.
As I said, it's not cheating in a strict understanding of the word.
Yeah indeed, Derklord was the one to call it cheating, but i was replying to both of you and didn't wanna end up with a huge quote again. :)
And yeah, stacking those traits is definetly powerful. Although, i would still allow some use in my campaign.
- Wanna get free Reach Spell on your cure light wound? Sure, sounds cool.
- Wanna change the element on your schorching rays with the elemental metamagic to match your character concept? Also cool.
- Want a free extend on your mage armor spell? Doesn't sound too bad either.
- Want your bard to cast charm person stealthfully as soon as 1st level thanks to silent spell? Sure, sounds useful.
Imo, all those exemples fall within trait powerlevel. It's when people start optimizing the hell out of them that it becomes ridiculous. You can be i'm gonna tell that admixture wizard 1/crossblooded Orc/Draconic Sorcerer X a big ''Oh no you don't!''.
In my campaigns, i'm willing to accept a certain degree of optimization until i kindly ask the player to tone it down. If players optimize their traits choices but still fall within my reasonable parameters, then i'm fine with it.
I think the "cheating" comes when people stack the 2 traits on the same spell.
Like, if someone took "Magical-Lineage: Shocking Grasp" and "Wayang Spellhunter: Scorching Ray" so that they could reduce the metamagics on both spells by 1 that wouldn't feel like cheating. It's when they apply both traits to the same spell that it starts to get sketchy.
The rule about traits is that their bonuses don't stack. Well these 2 traits don't give "bonuses" in the game sense, so by the usual definition what you're stacking isn't strictly called out as illegal ... but it's definitely going against the spirit of the rules.
Personally I'd just characterize the effects of those traits as "bonuses" and the problem solves itself.
As I said, it's not cheating in a strict understanding of the word.Yeah indeed, Derklord was the one to call it cheating, but i was replying to both of you and didn't wanna end up with a huge quote again. :)
And yeah, stacking those traits is definetly powerful. Although, i would still allow some use in my campaign.
- Wanna get free Reach Spell on your cure light wound? Sure, sounds cool.
- Wanna change the element on your schorching rays with the elemental metamagic to match your character concept? Also cool.
- Want a free extend on your mage armor spell? Doesn't sound too bad either.
- Want your bard to cast charm person stealthfully as soon as 1st level thanks to silent spell? Sure, sounds useful.Imo, all those exemples fall within trait powerlevel. It's when people start optimizing the hell out of them that it becomes ridiculous. You can be i'm gonna tell that admixture wizard 1/crossblooded Orc/Draconic Sorcerer X a big ''Oh no you don't!''.
In my campaigns, i'm willing to accept a certain degree of optimization until i kindly ask the player to tone it down. If players optimize their traits choices but still fall within my reasonable parameters, then i'm fine with it.
I would rather create more specific options that do those kinds of things you're discussing and not have generic traits that can accomplish it, but also do much more (and much worse).
The scorching ray example can just be that you learn a version of scorching ray that deals different elemental damage.
For cure spells, I might take a nod from PF2 and let you cast as a full round action to cast at reach.
Extended mage armor? Eh, just use a wand. I'm honestly not worried about this one.
Stealthy spell casting? Silent spell wont actually do the trick, but that's a different discussion entirely.
Anyways, point is there are methods of accomplishing what you want without giving "carte blanche" so to speak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the Don't Like Traits camp. I'm sure I'm one of the few tents in that field.
Traits are a prime example of power-creep that also add unnecessary complexity to the game. I don't want to rehash all the reasons I don't like traits, because they've already been discussed in this thread (redundancy, non-balanced, arbitrary restrictions, decision paralysis), and I know I'm in the minority, but I just don't see the benefits to PCs being worth these costs to the game. Traits are already so varied, and most people choose based on mechanics rather than using them as "a way to quantify (and encourage) building a character background that fits into your campaign world," it's basically a rule allowing a character to choose an extra class skill or a +1 for certain attack rolls or saving throws or whatever. Just create one comprehensive rule rather than expect players to comb through over 1,000 options (or the same 20 that are "superior" options). Or just treat this like the optional rule it is and consider not using them.
I recognize that there are some flavorful traits out there! But I don't see them used very often, and even when they are used, the aspects that make them flavorful are often forgotten.
At it's heart, I just think Tratis are a lackluster way of tying mechanics and role-play. As Quixote implied above, you don't need a trait mechanic if you want to roleplay a certain way. And if you don't care to roleplay a certain way, a trait mechanic isn't going to change that.
I would rather create more specific options that do those kinds of things you're discussing and not have generic traits that can accomplish it, but also do much more (and much worse).
The scorching ray example can just be that you learn a version of scorching ray that deals different elemental damage.
For cure spells, I might take a nod from PF2 and let you cast as a full round action to cast at reach.
Extended mage armor? Eh, just use a wand. I'm honestly not worried about this one.
Stealthy spell casting? Silent spell wont actually do the trick, but that's a different discussion entirely.
Anyways, point is there are methods of accomplishing what you want without giving "carte blanche" so to speak.
Yeah that's all fair points and you're right, those traits are inhenrently powerful, they require players that take them to make subpar choices so they are on similar powerlevel with other traits. I still find them fun though.
Your solutions are good but some are slipping within homebrew territory. There's nothing wrong with that, i do it all the time. Although, i the scorching rays example might RAW, but you'd still have to go through spell research, which is something else entirely.
For the stealthy charm person, sure it doesn't allow you to go completely stealthy, but if you're out of sight, you should be able to manage casting it without too much problem. I'm aware of the discussion around it though and i don't want to steer the conversation away from traits, it was mostly an example.
I understand what you mean, but now that PF1 is in it's twilight years I feel more inclined to house rule things that I don't like or don't think work.
You indicate whether or not the traits are used and which are the most powerful or not, however I ask you, do you take it to improve your characters or do you also role-play it?
For me, whether it be a trait; some feat or ability class, not only did he apply them to improve them but also role-play it, example if I take the scholar feat, I always tell them about my experiences. Of my Alma Mater
What are the most number of traits that you have given your player characters?