Streamlining Traits

[Systole]

This just came up in LPF, but it's long been an annoyance for me: Many traits apply to skills, but not all skills are covered. There doesn't seem to be any particularly good reason as to why some are and some aren't, except that Paizo has gotten around to them yet. And trying to find the correctly named trait just ends up being a slog through a 10-page pdf.

In my recent PF games, I've made these traits available to the players:

GM: Apt Pupil Choose two Knowledge skills. You gain a +1 trait bonus to both of those skills, and make one of those two Knowledge skills a permanent class skill. You can choose this trait multiple times, although you must select different Knowledge skills each time. Student of Hard Knocks Choose either Fortitude, Reflex, or Will. You gain a +1 trait bonus to that type of save. You can choose this trait multiple times, although you must select a different save category each time. Prodigy Choose any skill other than Perception. You gain a +1 trait bonus to that skill and it becomes a permanent class skill. You can choose this trait multiple times, although you must select a different skill category each time.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Looks good to me.

 

[Osagasu]

Well, the traits listed are mainly examples. Every DM I've interacted with has designed traits around the players. Personally, when I'm DMing I ask players to try and find one they like from the list, then I'll work with them to craft a second trait.

That said, it's in the rules to only allow a trait from a specific list once. If you're houseruling that out it's cool, I just wanted to point out that your traits are directly disagreeing with the established ruleset.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The lists always seemed so arbitrary anyway. Almost all the cool traits were faith or religion ones to begin with (why did you need separate categories for those, again?), and quite a few of them have a tenuous at best connection to that deity or faith anyway. And then regional traits... Just...seem so randomly thrown together. The categorizations suck, is what I'm saying, basically. Killing that off would be a huge plus to me.

 

[Systole]

That said, it's in the rules to only allow a trait from a specific list once. If you're houseruling that out it's cool, I just wanted to point out that your traits are directly disagreeing with the established ruleset.

As SOTS said, the distinctions are arbitrary. For example, a character can't take +1 Reflex and +1 Fortitude as they're both combat traits, unless they're an elf, in which case they have access to Youthful Mischief and Forlorn. However, anyone can take Fortiture and Will or Reflex and Will, since Indomitable Faith is a religion trait.

But if you want +1 Will, you can't take Birthmark, because they're both faith traits ... unless you're a half-orc, since they can get +1 Will as a race trait called Legacy of Sand.

Or how about that Poverty-Stricken and Child of the Street are both social traits ... so you can be homeless OR poor, but not homeless AND poor. Go figure. Why does Diplomacy come form a religious trait, but Bluff and Intimidate come from social traits?

The system as it stands is wonkier and more full of loopholes than the US tax code. Half of the official traits can be summed up with the three traits above, which would mean that more time could be put toward making traits like Accelerated Drinker or Threatening Defender. Those kind of traits actually have unique mechanics, instead of being retreads of class skill and saving throw traits.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

I think what you're overlooking is the original purpose of traits. They weren't intended to be a boost for optimizing characters. They were originally meant to be fluff on which to hang some character development and to give characters a tie in to the AP/Module/Campaign in which they're involved.

From that perspective, the way the list has evolved makes perfect sense - new traits are generated with each new AP/Campaign Setting/Race Book/etc.

They were never meant to be all inclusive - they're meant to add flavor, not be Vanilla.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It really doesn't matter if they were intended to be flavor only. They were also intended to be half the value of a feat each, roughly, which inherently means picking your two traits is just as important as picking your first level feat. Then you see how ridiculously unbalanced they are. Some are better than a feat or give a benefit nothing else can replicate. Then others give you +1 sense motive if within 300 ft of some specific NPC and said NPC is still alive. Yeah...

And flavor or not, the nonsensical places traits have gone, combined with the restriction on having 2 traits from the same list, makes the trait system even more of an abject failure. Look at the faith traits and try to tell me with a straight face that "faith traits" hasn't actually evolved into "the real good traits we're keeping together so no one can get 2 of them."

And why does flavor have to be hard coded like that? Wouldn't it be BETTER for RP if you just got +1 survival and count it as a class skill and it was left up to you to explain why you have it, rather than being forced to say "my character grew up real poor" (poverty stricken)? When that's the only way of becoming a survival expert via traits, it's doing the opposite of accomodating RP, it's restricting it.

 

[Systole]

If you're looking to build a backstory, then the categorizations and fluff actually detract from that, not add to it. Example: Why does my character have to be a Vagabond Child or a Kobold's Neighbor to know how to pick locks? Maybe he grew up is a stable, nuclear, well-to-do family of thieves and burglars. If I have a concept for a character like that, the fluff actually prevents me from building what I want.

Look, the fluff for the traits is a useful tool if you have no idea what you want out of a character. If you do know what you want, then it is a straitjacket. Furthermore, they're a crutch for Paizo, who continually recolors the same basic traits over and over again. Here's +1 Reflex as a Combat trait. Here's +1 Reflex as a Race trait. Here's +1 Reflex as a Regional trait. Here's +1 Reflex as a Campaign trait. Whoopee.

Yeah, the streamlined traits can be used more easily by powergamers to get what they want. So what? Powergamers are going pick the traits they want anyway. All this does is save the rest of us from hearing some tortured backstory about how Joe the fighter grew up as a street urchin while training under the world's greatest homeless swordsman, and then inherited his masterwork weapon when the old guy died. At least a non-backstory doesn't challenge my suspension of disbelief.


EDIT: SotS ninja'ed my talking points.

 

[tylermalan]

More free power?! I am not amused!

 

[SteelDraco]

If there's solely a mechanical effect to a trait, I'd rather be able to decide my own flavor to the mechanics. I agree with the OP's intent - I'd rather see a short list of generic mechanical traits that allow minor customization to your character than have Paizo waste time reprinting the same mechanics with different flavor justifications.

However, I prefer traits that are more flavorful or circumstantial than mechanical in nature.