If a character were to choose two traits that ultimately grant a bonus to the same number pool (albeit through different means and triggers) would those numbers stack?
Example:
1) Heavy Hitter
Benefit: You gain a +1 trait bonus on damage rolls made with unarmed attacks.
2) Killer
Benefit: You deal an amount of additional damage equal to your weapon’s critical hit modifier when you score a successful critical hit with a weapon; this additional damage is added to the final total, and is not multiplied by the critical hit multiple itself. This extra damage is a trait bonus.
Your thread is in the wrong forum, this would most likely belong in the 1st Edition rules forum.
Nevertheless, the answer is, the trait bonuses do not stack. Generally, only racial bonuses, circumstance bonuses, and dodge bonuses stack. All other types of bonuses do not stack, and if you get multiples, only the best bonus counts.
Your thread is in the wrong forum, this would most likely belong in the 1st Edition rules forum.
Nevertheless, the answer is, the trait bonuses do not stack. Generally, only racial bonuses, circumstance bonuses, and dodge bonuses stack. All other types of bonuses do not stack, and if you get multiples, only the best bonus counts.
I appreciate it
|
It's important to note that not all bonuses granted by traits are actually "trait" bonuses. Some are untyped. For example:
You learned to fight while serving as a bodyguard in the taverns of Absalom, where keeping the patrons alive through bloody bar brawls was just part of your job. When you make an attack that deals nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, you gain a +1 bonus on your damage roll.
The +1 is an untyped damage bonus, so it would stack with a +1 trait bonus to damage.
|
|
traits that don't say their type should be trait bonuses.
Wow. That debate has come up multiple times in the past few years and that's the first time anyone has every linked that post.
I retract my earlier statement.
traits that don't say their type should be trait bonuses.
Did you actually even read that thread? All he actually says is that the design philosophy was for bonuses granted by traits to not stack… its not a hard rule. He also further went on to say that whether or not you treat all bonuses from traits as trait bonuses is purely up to table variation.
It's RAI vs RAW. The intention was for all bonuses from traits to be trait bonuses. But the official text doesn't reflect that.
Personally, I always build as if those untyped bonuses from traits were trait bonuses, but "officially" they only are when they say they are. However in this case, the two traits in question both specify they are trait bonuses, so don't stack either way.
I doubt any trait stacking is game breaking, and the ones that come close aren't "bonuses" anyway and so stack anyway. It's just a question of the rules being what they are.
Help me understand how allowing Traits, whether they give typed bonuses or not, to have their bonuses stack if they affect the same thing is so game breaking. I'm not trying to be snotty or pedantic, I'm genuinely curious how the math works out that multiple Traits would somehow make enough of a difference in character build that it might make a PC too powerful or something.
It's not about most traits stacking being particularly impactful, it's about not setting a precedent, for both that player and others. Sure, the two traits stacking isn't overpowered. Having a weapon be affected by Weapon Focus twice for some reason isn't, either, so why allow the former but not the latter? And so on... What other clearly illegal things do you allow because the specific result may not be clearly overpowered? Where do you draw the line, if not at what the rules clearly set as a boundary? And I don't mean just the stacking rules, but also the trait introduction: "[Traits are] intended to give player characters a slight edge, not a secret backdoor way to focus all of a character’s traits on one type of bonus and thus gain an unseemly advantage." APG pg. 327
Players putting all their eggs into one basket makes the game worse for the other players, for the GM, and usually ultimately even for the player in question.
It's not that it's overpowered, it's that you're ignoring the crystal clear rules to do something that not only sets a bad precedent, but makes the game worse in itself.
Magical lineage and wayang spell hunter is a different kind of case. Neither provides a bonus as defined when discussing stacking. Simultaneously they are worded in unique ways from each other. One lowers the spell while the other lowers the spell level. Very similar yet different things.
|
commentary
I'd suggest that if we want players to use Traits specifically to diversify their PCs we reintroduce randomness to their choosing. In the Ultimate Campaign book there's an option to roll up a generic backstory ...mandating it is not my preference.
GMs need to READ the character designs, talk with the players and give good advice, and then approve the final draft of the character. They also need to curate level advancement. That would effectively end what most people would consider 'abusing the system'.
Especially with the campaign traits and similar I remember wrath had some nice character ones that always worked best if you seperated the fluff and the mechanics letting players choose what they wanted. Mandating this is a required trait for the campaign though would annoy me because its not about what I think works for my character its you telling me at least in part who and what my character is. I remember one GM I had several clashes with because they had ideas about how various races and classes should be played that they'd push on people after character creation e.g. rangers steal anything they can get ahold of.
The reason it matters is simple: The entire point of traits is to reflect your background, not gain some overwhelming advantage.
Trait bonuses not stacking, just like the rule preventing taking multiple traits of the same type (exalts being exception) is there to force players to diversify; Or at least make an effort in doing so.
Its also the same reason why they straight up removed stacking ability scores outside of specific situations. Yeah its not "broken", but it heavily destabilizes the game.
*laughs in Reactionary, Rich Parents, Magical Lineage and few others*
|
|
How much does the fluff of a trait matter? How much do you think that influences what traits players choose? If you tell a player "You can choose between some kind of benefit from being bullied and harassed all through your childhood, or you can choose some kind of benefit from having traveled the world with your parents and you gain energy from travel," how many would choose Reactionary and how many would choose Wanderlust?
IMO, the majority of players will choose traits for the mechanical benefit. If the player doesn't know the GM at all or instead knows the GM runs combat heavy games, they're likely to pick Reactionary, or something to shore up a Save, or something that adds damage and so on.
The reason I said "mandate" above is because the default, again, IMO, is for players to see traits as half a feat, as a mechanical benefit. Even if the GM takes the fluff from a trait and tries to weave it into the narrative of the game, this won't affect how the player perceives their character or plays the PC.
Traits themselves however weren't created solely to give PCs more power. They are meant to be a mechanical benefit derived from some philosophy, event, religion, culture or whatever that shaped the character BEFORE they were 1st level. Traits are notable keystones of a PC's backstory that also happen to give that PC some kind of advantage.
Now of course I don't have data to back up my own anecdotal evidence; your tables might be radically different from mine, filled with thespians who are laser focused on creating personalities, not characters, and then use traits to add depth and detail to those personalities, I don't know. My own games and the PFS players I've sat in with over the years suggest to me that most players see traits as numbers, mechanics, advantages, and the fluff of them is inconsequential.
If we want to reduce the potential abuse of traits and the advantages they give, mandating that they develop organically from the backstory of the character is one way to manage it.
Well I choose for flavour, in fact I've had a number of debates in this forum about my character building because I'm choosing things for the fluff not the mechanics and they keep telling me "You can roleplay how you want this is better mechanically." I still choose based on flavour, I just post here less for help.
Remember - one of the two traits are meant to be a Campaign Trait. If you are using homebrew, you should really come up with a list of campaign traits to be sued in your campaign - this would generally solve the problem of stacking traits.
|
The "fluff" of a trait matters a lot to me - but I'm perfectly happy for players to "re-fluff" their traits to better fit their backstory (and/or "forwardstory").
For example, if the character is going to be a multi-classed fighter/wizard who will become an eldritch knight, then it makes sense for their version of "magical knack" to represent early training by an Order of eldritch knights, rather than being found in the woods by a unicorn or something.
And the campaign world gets an Order of eldritch knights out of it too.
And it's not as if Paizo hasn't developed mechanically-identical traits with different fluff (although that may have been by accident!)