Yeah the most I've had on a character was 4 - 2 from starting snd 2 from the Extra Traits feat.
We have 3 in our main campaign at the moment I think: 2 of our choice and one campaign trait. I've made good use of my 2 chosen traits, but I always forget to add my campaign trait when it comes up. Having said that I did write that trait into my backstory and have played it in character, so I guess it's done it's job, even if I haven't got any mechanical benefit from it.
That is what we did for strange aeons, one campaign trait plus any 2 traits.
What are the most number of traits that you have given your player characters?
I never gave more than two plus the extra one players can get for taking a drawback.
Speaking of drawback, i like them, but i feel like they are even more unbalanced than traits. Lets look at a few of them.
Cruelty: You get a -2 penalty to attack rolls while dying or helpless creatures are within 30 feet of you. Ouch. You can work around, but still harsh.
Envy: You get a stacking penalty if you don't steal an object worth 10 GP each day. I hope you're gonna be in an urban city because those long overland trek are gonna be fun. Cool trait though, enforce some kleptomaniac behavior.
Impatient: You can't delay and you take a -1 penalty to basically every d20 roll if you're the last ally to act?! Super harsh.
Helpless: First time an ally fall unconcious, or die, within 30, you are dazed for a turn. Ooof, losing too action as a result of an attack seriously hurt. Prety harsh, but cool drawback.
Paranoid: DC to help you is 15 instead of 10. Fits the trait, but it's not really an issue after a few level.
Bitter: Your allies heals you for 1 hp less with their spell, spell-like abilities or class feature. Wait, that's it? Seriously?
I do like drawbacks, but i always end up banning bitter otherwise it's literally a free traits.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read of several people dissing over Adopted being a cheat, and I see their point. However it's also worth noting, in my opinion, that the cross-Racial trait doesn't really come for free, as you're locked out of Social traits due to Adopted, which, by itself, does nothing.
So yes, you can get a Racial trait from a different race, but in exchange you cannot pick any Social trait either. And, depending on the character's build, this may not be a trivial exchange, since there are quite a few notable Social traits, some of which may even be considered build-changing, namely: Student of Philosophy.
Which, incidentally, is one of the traits I hate the most since it's the Wayang Spellhunter equivalent for non-blasting Wizards. Curious how 20-Int and 7-Cha characters are all phenomenal party faces...
I like Clever wordplay and Student of philosophy. I think they are great traits for the infuriating ''You know i'm right even though you hate me'' type of character.
They might be a tad too strong though, so maybe they should only work on creature with 13 intelligence or higher? It would represent that your target must be able to understand all your academic and scientific vocabulary to be affected.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've soured on them, honestly. In my experience they're just another way to optimize characters. In my groups I almost never see them roleplayed or integrated into backstories. Same with drawbacks-- nobody takes the ones that will be mechanically disadvantageous and they never get role played, so and it's just a free mechanical bonus.
In my games I just have every player take the campaign trait for the AP I'm running, and give them a free class skill of their choice. No traits.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Clever wordplay and Student of philosophy. I think they are great traits for the infuriating ''You know i'm right even though you hate me'' type of character.
More like the "I've dumped my Charisma as much as I could but I still want to be the best at doing Charisma things" type of character. It makes playing Cha-based characters who want to fill the party face role pointless, since the 20-Int Wizard with 7-Cha will be as good as they are in most social situations, while also having a shit-ton of skills.
They might be a tad too strong though, so maybe they should only work on creature with 13 intelligence or higher?
How would that make any difference, like, at all? Lol. These are already picked only by those characters with high Int anyway, it would be literally be a moot limitation.
How would that make any difference, like, at all? Lol. These are already picked only by those characters with high Int anyway, it would be literally be a moot limitation.
I meant, a character with those trait would only be able to substitute their intelligence for their charisma if the target of their cha-based skill has an intelligence of 13 of higher. That would represent that the type of vocabulary and logic that those character use only work on those that are able to understand what they actually say.
Traits that add a new Class Skill are perfectly fine, in my opinion, and I really like having the option. The +1 (or rarely +2) tacked onto the skill check is a little dubious, but not usually worth raising an eyebrow about.
*It's a little weird that a Fighter, whose class doesn't natively grant Perception could take a Trait that grants Perception and have a better check than a Rogue (all other things being equal). Sure, the Rogue could take the same Trait, but they get less benefit out of it. Not broken, but strange.
As a player, naturally, I like Traits that give me neat mechanical options, or make other options better (like Threatening Defender). But it's fair to note that these range from "this will come up once a campaign, maybe" to "this is equal to a class feature".
I'm not including Trapfinding here; the niche protection around finding magical traps serves no purpose, in my opinion.
There are several Traits that are very nearly equal to Uncanny Dodge, such as Defensive Strategist or Ever Wary (that lack language allowing higher level opponents to ignore these benefits).
Some Traits approach the value of Feats, such as Defender of the Society, or are even better than Feats, like Sword Scion (or Finding Haleen, but that was obviously never meant to be used in Pathfinder).
At the end of the day, if Traits are supposed to be equal to half a Feat, and are designed to add flavor to your character, I wonder why we just don't give people an extra Feat in the first place, as opposed to making all these "sub-Feats", which are even more badly balanced than the Feats we already have.
I think the "cheating" comes when people stack the 2 traits on the same spell. (...) 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.
This is exactly what I meant, and why. I don't mind you using the feat, I mind you doing something with it that you're explicitly asked not to do.
Yes, strict RAW, the traits stack. Also RAW is style feat stances lasting indefinitely, polymorph effects which state granted attacks adding them to the creature's attacks (e.g. Form of the Dragon granting up to 11 natural attacks), Simple Weapon Proficiency removing all penalties, and so on.
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.
Wait... you're saying that Fireball needs help to be good and to be used a lot?
Talk about different playing experiences!
Stop with the name calling or at least get it right.
"Cheating generally describes various actions designed to subvert rules in order to obtain unfair advantages." from Wikipedia This describes exactly how I used the term, players stacking traits despite the rules clearly telling them not to in oder to gain an advantage that can't be gained in another way.
Same with drawbacks-- nobody takes the ones that will be mechanically disadvantageous and they never get role played, so and it's just a free mechanical bonus.
I was thinking the same thing, which is also why I didn't use drawbacks in my current campaign. But they might help players give their characters minor weaknessess/quirks to roleplay without mechanically hampering the character, for players who tend to either not have any such things in their characters, or tend to go over-the-top, this might be useful.
On the topic of drawbacks; warded against nature should be a magic trait, not a drawback
It would be overpowered as a trait. Hell, depending on the campaign, it might be overpowered as a feat! This thing is a selective but more ranged version of Antilife Shell! This should really say "domestic animals".
I think the "cheating" comes when people stack the 2 traits on the same spell. (...) 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.This is exactly what I meant, and why. I don't mind you using the feat, I mind you doing something with it that you're explicitly asked not to do.
Yeah, all good! I don't exactly agree with the definition, but i get were you guys are coming from. Can't say i disagree either.
Wait... you're saying that Fireball needs help to be good and to be used a lot?
Talk about different playing experiences!
Yes and no. Fireball has no trouble getting picked at all around all table, but i'd wager that it's partly because people like the idea of chucking big ball of fire and that it's a stample spell. It doesn't make the spell anybetter though.
In my experience, basic fireball are pretty ''meh''. Fire resistance is very common and it's damage is kinda low. Sure it's AOE, sure it has nice range and sure it still deals half damage even on a save, but it's always mediocre at best.
Imo blasting, is generally pretty subpar as to what caster can do. Pathfinder has a literal librairie worth of spell that can enhance your party, or debuff the opposition into oblivion. To name a few 3rd level spells : Haste, Slow, stinking cloud, Spiked Pit.
Aside from haste, which is an amazing buff, any creature that fails is saving throw against one of those previous spell is either out of the fight or nearly completely useless.
It's why i liked using those traits, with the extra trait feat, to make empowered fireball. It felt like less of a waste of my spell slots.
Anyway, that's mostly subjective, you're 100% free to dislike those traits and if you have success with vanilla fireball, then i'm honestly glad! :)
|
|
I actually like the regional trait to make diplomacy a wis based skill. Makes a diplomatic druid easier to pull off
I personally find that trait, and others like it like Clever Wordplay or Bruising Intellect, much more acceptable than Student of Philosophy.
Mainly because they only affects one skill, instead of a whole role (yes, yes, with Student of Philosophy you cannot Gather Info or Feint, tell me how many times you Gathered Info via mundane means or fricking Feinted with your Wizard), but also because you don't see them so mindlessly used across all characters with a high non-Cha stat.
For example, you don't see almost all Clerics, Druids, or Shamans pick Empathic Diplomat. Some of them might, specifically those who want to focus on being the party's (honest) face, but in general they won't default to it. Those classes also have some use for Cha as well, so dumping Cha comes at a cost, unlike virtually all Wizards having 7 (or less) Cha with no drawback and defaulting to Student of Philosophy unless they specifically don't want to.
This single trait makes Skill Focus (Linguistics) + Orator, which I love, almost pathetic given the two feats investment. OK, rant's over.
I personally find that trait, and others like it like Clever Wordplay or Bruising Intellect, much more acceptable than Student of Philosophy.
Maybe i'm interpreting Student of Philosophy wrong, but it seems to me like you can't influence attitude, You can only persuade. ''Persuading'' is not really a specific action in the diplomacy skill, but the way i understand it, i would only allow it to be used to make a request. The trait make you sound logical, not likable.
Granted, it's still pretty powerful for bluffing as lying is the thing it's the most used for.
I'm not saying you're wrong to dislike the trait btw.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe i'm interpreting Student of Philosophy wrong, but it seems to me like you can't influence attitude, You can only persuade. ''Persuading'' is not really a specific action in the diplomacy skill, but the way i understand it, i would only allow it to be used to make a request. The trait make you sound logical, not likable.
From my experience, that's the main use of the Diplomacy skill. If you need the NPC to do something, you simply want to persuade them into agreeing that that's, in fact, the right thing to do, not to befriend them.
You want the guard to look away because they're not paid enough to care; you want the bandits not to attack you because, in truth, you are both on the same side; you want the rallying mob to calm down because they're being manipulated by the ruling class. At the end of the day, most of the time you don't want NPCs to become your friends, you just need to persuade them to think what you want them to think (compatibly with their character, creed and priorities), so they help you/get out of your way and your party can progress.
Befriending NPCs comes with RP and kinship of ideas, and if you need to improve the attitude of someone on the spot, bribing is always an option, lol.
From my experience, that's the main use of the Diplomacy skill. If you need the NPC to do something, you simply want to persuade them into agreeing that that's, in fact, the right thing to do, not to befriend them.
Fair Enough! I personally prefer clever wordplay or bruising intellect anyway, as i don't like having two half of different skill anyway, feels just weird.
Befriending NPCs comes with RP and kinship of ideas, and if you need to improve the attitude of someone on the spot, bribing is always an option, lol.
Yeah Gold pieces are truly OP! :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree with you Mark that Traits can benefit certain players that way, but I have to wonder if the mechanical benefit of any of the traits actually has any affect on roleplay. Why not just pick a trait that says your character was, say, bullied as a child, and then build your stats to reflect that (if you even feel it's necessary to have something like that reflected in your stats). A +2 to initiative isn't going to guide a player to remember their PC was bullied as a kid in relevant situations.
I guess I'm looking at it from the perspective of someone who already has a fleshed out character in mind, and then goes searching for a trait that matches the PC they have in mind (and again, there's well over 1,000 traits to review), and then they end up with traits that give a +1 with concealed weapons in a surprise round but the PC they've built is a barbarian with a polearm.
My point is that traits don't actually encourage roleplay in most cases. They're just power-creep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of traits could just be replaced with a flat pick of one of:
skill X is now a class skill
+1 in skill X
+2 for specific use of skill X
That would actually help with roleplay and character building far more than the current system, because "I have an idea which involves my wizard being good at riding horses" allows for a more individual character idea than "my wizard has to come from country Y in order to be able to ride a horse even though my original concept was from country Z."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to be that guy.
I don't like traits not because they are bad,
but in my play group what happens is one of 2 things
one the players just take the best traits to power game.
or
the players don't care and just pick 2 with out giving it much thought. then move on forgetting they even have them.
so here is what i have done. i do not give free traits to my group i give them a free non-combat feat at first level. if they want traits they may take the feat that gives them 2 traits. i have been doing this for 5+ years now. in all the games i have ran not one player has use there free feat to get traits, not even the players who pushed for them in the first places.
i know this is just how my playgroup is they are roll players :(
When I prepared Crimson Throne, I told one of my players he can take whatever campaign trait he wants - the mechanical benefits are negotiable. Often enough it's possible to make up why the trait's story fits to a different class skill or save increase or whatever. It helps that the Crimson Throne campaign traits aren't stronger than average.
He, usually a quite mechanics-minded guy, was at least interested. Once we get to play, I hope the background he chose freely means more to him than a background he "had" to take for a mechanical benefit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i do not give free traits to my group i give them a free non-combat feat at first level. if they want traits they may take the feat that gives them 2 traits.
I really like this idea.
i do not give free traits to my group i give them a free non-combat feat at first level. if they want traits they may take the feat that gives them 2 traits.I really like this idea.
thank you
I really like that idea of getting a non-combat feat instead of two traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really tend to like the idea that each trait you take needs to match your actual backstory and designed character.
So the non dexterous wizard who spent all his time studying should not be taking reactionary.
The trait needs to match the character, instead of just browsing the traits to find the best one and picking it even if it does not make sense lore wise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really tend to like the idea that each trait you take needs to match your actual backstory and designed character.
So the non dexterous wizard who spent all his time studying should not be taking reactionary.
The trait needs to match the character, instead of just browsing the traits to find the best one and picking it even if it does not make sense lore wise.
That will just lead to character backgrounds being written to enable the most desirable traits or fights over what counts as "matching" your backstory.
Is a 14 dex wizard enough to qualify for reactionary?
There are no rules for it. I understand your intention, it simply wouldn't work well for the entire player base, but might work okay for individual game groups.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That will just lead to character backgrounds being written to enable the most desirable traits or fights over what counts as "matching" your backstory.
Is a 14 dex wizard enough to qualify for reactionary?
There are no rules for it. I understand your intention, it simply wouldn't work well for the entire player base, but might work okay for individual game groups.
That's fine with me. I dont really see a problem there. As long as it makes sense in the backstory go ahead.
Maybe the wizard was an acrobat in a previous life or something and thus takes reactionary.
As long as it makes sense lore wise go ahead.
But when someone makes a character with a backstory and then picks traits that dont align or make any sense with their characters backstory has always felt off with me. And yeah their is no rule for it, its just a houserule thing that I do when I GM. Wacky weird things are fine as long as it can be justified within their own lore.
And yeah 14 Dex would be fine. But even if someone came to me with a low Dex character and took reactionary but justified it in their background I would be fine with it.
i.e. maybe they grew up in an abusive household with alcoholic parents or something that would fly into fits of rage and beating so their were always aware and on edge and its just a tick that stuck with them for the rest of thier life. Always staying in their room reading books etc. that why they ultimately became a wizard but arent very dexterous.
If someone wants to start with the Rich Parent trait it needs to be justified somehow. I feel like that should be the same for all traits.
Just personally how I run it. But Im not hawkish about it. its just a pet peeve of mine.
That will just lead to character backgrounds being written to enable the most desirable traits or fights over what counts as "matching" your backstory.
Is a 14 dex wizard enough to qualify for reactionary?
There are no rules for it. I understand your intention, it simply wouldn't work well for the entire player base, but might work okay for individual game groups.
That's fine with me. I dont really see a problem there. As long as it makes sense in the backstory go ahead.
Maybe the wizard was an acrobat in a previous life or something and thus takes reactionary.
As long as it makes sense lore wise go ahead.
But when someone makes a character with a backstory and then picks traits that dont align or make any sense with their characters backstory has always felt off with me. And yeah their is no rule for it, its just a houserule thing that I do when I GM. Wacky weird things are fine as long as it can be justified within their own lore.
And yeah 14 Dex would be fine. But even if someone came to me with a low Dex character and took reactionary but justified it in their background I would be fine with it.
i.e. maybe they grew up in an abusive household with alcoholic parents or something that would fly into fits of rage and beating so their were always aware and on edge and its just a tick that stuck with them for the rest of thier life. Always staying in their room reading books etc. that why they ultimately became a wizard but arent very dexterous.If someone wants to start with the Rich Parent trait it needs to be justified somehow. I feel like that should be the same for all traits.
Just personally how I run it. But Im not hawkish about it. its just a pet peeve of mine.
The problem is you can come up with all sorts of reason to justify something being in your background, that power gamers aren't going to care about.
I don't disagree with you that character traits should sync up with backstory, but trying to "enforce" it seems like a fool's errand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is you can come up with all sorts of reason to justify something being in your background, that power gamers aren't going to care about.
I don't disagree with you that character traits should sync up with backstory, but trying to "enforce" it...
This is basically what the Stormwind fallacy denounce : Powergaming is not opposed to roleplay, they both work on different scales.
Although i do agree with Lord_Rachen as well, i like when traits mechanical benefit fits with the character concept, just like i like when ability scores matches the character description.
Although as i mentioned before, i couldn't really care less about ability names, the don't have any impact within the game world.
- Wanna take Rich parent to represent your character owning a successful business before leaving for adventure? Sure, it's a good justification.
- Wanna take Birthmark and fluff it as a divine tatoo instead? Sure it doesn't have to be a birthmark in my game.
- Wanna take indomitable faith without being super religious? Sure, your character can just be naturally strong willed.
IMO, mechanical abilities are just the mechanical expression of your character concept. In the end what matters is that your collection of traits, abilities and powers manage to convince me that they are representing your character idea.
It goes both way however, cause i'm sorry, but at my table, if your character has 8 in Charisma, you don't get to describe your character as ''charming'' without investing in some skills or feat.
The problem is you can come up with all sorts of reason to justify something being in your background, that power gamers aren't going to care about.
I mean I am the GM. I come up with all sorts or reasons to justify all sorts of things in my games.
Ive never had any pushback from any powergamers Ive played with. Powergamers from my experience enjoy the challenge of pulling the most from the rules as defined. Plus I dont really feel like its that limiting of a request.
I don't disagree with you that character traits should sync up with backstory, but trying to "enforce" it...
I did specifically say that I not hawkish about it and its just a pet peeve of mine.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is basically what the Stormwind fallacy denounce : Powergaming is not opposed to roleplay, they both work on different scales.Although i do agree with Lord_Rachen as well, i like when traits mechanical benefit fits with the character concept, just like i like when ability scores matches the character description.
Although as i mentioned before, i couldn't really care less about ability names, the don't have any impact within the game world.
- Wanna take Rich parent to represent your character owning a successful business before leaving for adventure? Sure, it's a good justification.
- Wanna take Birthmark and fluff it as a divine tatoo instead? Sure it doesn't have to be a birthmark in my game.
- Wanna take indomitable faith without being super religious? Sure, your character can just be naturally strong willed.IMO, mechanical abilities are just the mechanical expression of your character concept. In the end what matters is that your collection of traits, abilities and powers manage to convince me that they are representing your character idea.
It goes both way however, cause i'm sorry, but at my table, if your character has 8 in Charisma, you don't get to describe your character as ''charming'' without investing in some skills or feat.
I agree that roleplay and power are on separate tracks, but the Stromwind fallacy simply says that optimizing doesn't require that you're bad at roleplaying, or that being good at roleplaying means you're bad at optimizing.
My argument is a different tact saying that those who choose traits based on mechanical benefit will not be dissuaded by having to choose to add that to their background, while Lord_Rachen was suggesting some sort of restriction to force the mechanics and background to match each other. If players are choosing traits for the mechanics, it doesn't mean they wont attempt to role play their character but I believe that trying to create a restriction just isn't a fruitful avenue.
It also goes against your concept of re-flavoring certain traits, which I'm highly in favor of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My argument is a different tact saying that those who choose traits based on mechanical benefit will not be dissuaded by having to choose to add that to their background, while Lord_Rachen was suggesting some sort of restriction to force the mechanics and background to match each other. If players are choosing traits for the mechanics, it doesn't mean they wont attempt to role play their character but I believe that trying to create a restriction just isn't a fruitful avenue.
I think you got me all wrong, the purpose is not to dissuade nor restrict anyone from taking trait. I allow them all.
The purpose is to promote and blend the mechanics and roleplaying together. It is not to stop people from taking certain traits.
The player most certainly can just pick the most optimized trait or make the decision based on mechanics, they just then have to also bring it back around a work it into the roleplay aspect.
Its perfectly ok to have players write character backgrounds the most desirable traits that is not something I have a problem with.
I agree that roleplay and power are on separate tracks, but the Stromwind fallacy simply says that optimizing doesn't require that you're bad at roleplaying, or that being good at roleplaying means you're bad at optimizing.
My argument is a different tact saying that those who choose traits based on mechanical benefit will not be dissuaded by having to choose to add that to their background, while Lord_Rachen was suggesting some sort of restriction to force the mechanics and background to match each other. If players are choosing traits for the mechanics, it doesn't mean they wont attempt to role play their character but I believe that trying to create a restriction just isn't a fruitful avenue.
It also goes against your concept of re-flavoring certain traits, which I'm highly in favor of.
Oh i wasn't trying to accuse you of the Stormwind fallacy, maybe i should have expressed myself better. Sorry.
I merely meant that restrictions like Lord_Rachen suggested were inefective, as a mean of powergamming control, because powergamming =/= bad roleplaying. Given time and a bit of thought, any character might seem justifiable.
I think i sit somewhere between the middle of the argument? Or maybe Claxon and i agree.
Although, i don't disagree with Lord_Rachen as well. A character roleplay and fluff should be in accordance to its mechanical abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One is expected to roleplay and/or justify Reactionary, but not Improved Initiative. They do the same thing (+2 vs +4 aside) so why the arbitrary distinction? You can say the same thing about Skill Focus, Great Fortitude and so on.
Arguably, one should be expected to RP feats as well. I do like to see some manner of background justification for them, anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One is expected to roleplay and/or justify Reactionary, but not Improved Initiative. They do the same thing (+2 vs +4 aside) so why the arbitrary distinction? You can say the same thing about Skill Focus, Great Fortitude and so on.
I kind-of have to agree with this. Where's the arbitrary line between the character features you have to roleplay and the ones you don't?
The way I see it your character sheet should inform your roleplay, and your roleplay should inform your character sheet, but it doesn't have to be 100%. You might decide that one of your traits, two of your feats and the dip into Monk are the important character-defining aspects of your PC. Or you might decide your name, your race, the FCB and a signature spell are more important to how your character looks and feels. These two examples could be from the same character, but they'd likely feel very different.
While there's no right way to do it, it can feel like you're swimming upstream if you try to do things in a vastly different manner to the rest of your group. It's probably more important for you and the GM to make sure you're vaguely on the same page about a character than to have hard-and-fast rules about this kind of thing.
One is expected to roleplay and/or justify Reactionary, but not Improved Initiative. They do the same thing (+2 vs +4 aside) so why the arbitrary distinction? You can say the same thing about Skill Focus, Great Fortitude and so on.
Who's to say that they don't have to roleplay/justify Improved initiative either?
It doesn't have to be a complicated justification either. Sometime ''my character has quick reflex'' or ''My character is though'' is enough of a justification, especially for adventurers.
Imo, the only time it feels wrong is when mechanic contradict roleplay. I wouldn't allow someone to describe their character as ''frail and sickly'' if they have a positive constitution modifier without magical items.
If all skills where class skills, traits wouldn't really be that important....except the non-skill based ones of course.
One is expected to roleplay and/or justify Reactionary, but not Improved Initiative. They do the same thing (+2 vs +4 aside) so why the arbitrary distinction? You can say the same thing about Skill Focus, Great Fortitude and so on.Who's to say that they don't have to roleplay/justify Improved initiative either?
i guess, the rules/sources?
Feats are described as abilities you use to customize your character; traits are…, a “character trait isn’t just another kind of power you can add on to your character—it’s a way to quantify (and encourage) building a character background that fits into your campaign world. Think of character traits as “story seeds” for your background”.
That said, emphasis is on having a tie to your background, not specifically something that you are intended to roleplay per se.
I mean, i guess you're not wrong. The devs seems to have intented for traits to be used for roleplay purposes, but for reasons stated previously this does next to nothing to deter powergaming. I feel like it has the reverse effect. Instead of having powergamers chooses how they wanna incorporate their traits into their roleplay, then end up choosing how they will roleplay based on the traits they want for their specific build.
But then, want i meant was more along the line of : What stops you from requiring feats to be incorporated into your roleplay?
If all skills where class skills, traits wouldn't really be that important....except the non-skill based ones of course.
True. I feel like it's one of the thing 5e did well with backgrounds giving skill proficiencies. I might implement something like this in my future campaigns, or just scrap the idea of of class skill althogether.
"Corefinder" will be using backgrounds as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that its not a good way to deter powergaming. Which is not my intention in the first place. It more to blend everything together.
Also in my homebrews, that I mostly run, I always try to tie in personnel stories and events related to the characters. So I use characters traits and backstories as hooks and tools in my story writing to incorporate elements from their character creation into it.
While there's no right way to do it, it can feel like you're swimming upstream if you try to do things in a vastly different manner to the rest of your group. It's probably more important for you and the GM to make sure you're vaguely on the same page about a character than to have hard-and-fast rules about this kind of thing.
I definitely agree with this, I'm not really hawkish about it. And I am the firm belief no matter how a GM wants to run the game, if the players aren't on board there is no use. Were here to have fun, and sometimes that means doing whats fun for the players even if that not how you as the GM always wants to do it.
So has anyone let your players pick any traits even if they are the same type?
So has anyone let your players pick any traits even if they are the same type?I don't, because I expect that to only increase people grabbing the same traits all the time. And it's not just mechanics - to pick up something that was said upthread:
it seems to me that a religious character (for example) is likely to have more than one faith trait.
I don't really want such characters at my table. Like, if the character already has a trait that represents them growing up at a temple, and a feat that represents them growing up at a temple, and an archetype that represents them growing up at a temple, the last thing I want them to have is the second trait also representing that they grew up at a temple! Dito for martials with all combat feats and an "makes you hit harder" archetype (*cough*) taking two combat traits.
If a player came to me saying "hey, I would really like to use these two traits from the category because they're both perfect for my backstory", and it's clearly for flavor and not min-maxing reasons, I'd definitely allow it... but I don't see it as an improvement to the game as a general houserule.
Traits were intro'd in Ultimate Campaign
Advanced Player's Guide, actually.
Lol @ making someone roleplay Reactionary. My goodness.
What if they took Paragon of Speed, instead? Exact same thing, but you weren't picked on as a child to the point of being a jumpy little b!tch... I guess? Just fast. How do you roleplay that?
By going first in initiative...
Lol @ making someone roleplay Reactionary. My goodness.
What if they took Paragon of Speed, instead? Exact same thing, but you weren't picked on as a child to the point of being a jumpy little b!tch... I guess? Just fast. How do you roleplay that?
By going first in initiative...
It doesn't have to be complicated or even part of every interaction your character have. You can simply roleplay it by describing your character as someone with good reaction, that's it.
Some trait/feat/ability will have bigger influence on your character roleplay, some will have less.