Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Pathfinder [closed]
Proposal: Streamlined traits
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Maidhc O Casain" data-source="post: 5848745" data-attributes="member: 29558"><p>I'm going to go ahead and vote <strong><span style="color: Red">NO</span></strong> to streamlined traits.</p><p></p><p>The discussion here and in the thread on the main forums has really gotten me thinking. I don't think the problem is the way traits are handled by Paizo, I think it's the way they've come to be thought of by players (myself included <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" />).</p><p></p><p>Traits were originally introduced as a way to give a character a "hook" into an AP, when the players might have really no idea what they might want or need in their character's background in order for the GM to work them into the game. I <em>love</em> all of the little situational bonuses that go along with the fluff of the traits. The idea was that you choose the fluff to fit the character, and take the bonus that came along with it. I really like this idea, and I honestly do <em>try</em> to take at least one of my traits with fluff in mind - trying to match it to my character's personality and background. Sometimes I give in to my wish for a good bonus. (Kalinn's traits come from her martial training with her clan and from her mix of Draconic and Demonic blood and have great tie-in with her background while also giving good bonuses for her; with Pari I was more mechanically motivated and took traits based on bonus rather than fluff. With Brân - my short lived and mostly forgotten Tengu Detective - I was whole hog into the "fit" and took Canter and Skeptic, which are both highly dependent on situation but seemed really cool for his personality and profession. In none of these cases did I "re-skin" an old trait).</p><p></p><p>All the discussion of whether or not to include Perception in the "Capable" list - in particular the contention that making it available "fluff free" would make it a go to trait for almost everyone - has me convinced that traits have become simply another way to boost character power, and that most folks are looking at the mechanical benefit first and the fluff second - and if the fluff doesn't fit, making a proposal for a "re-skin." Some folks like that; I'm not one of them and it just rubs me the wrong way.</p><p></p><p>Are they clunky and unwieldy as written? Yep. But I still like 'em the way they are - clunky and quirky - which is the reason for my vote.</p><p></p><p>Edit: As I re-read this, it occurs to me that I might actually be willing to vote to "close the door" on new traits and stick strictly with those in the APG. In that case, I'd allow re-fluffing those that are specific to Golarion so that they'd fit LPF but I'd vote against allowing multiple re-skins. So "Eyes and Ears of the City" would get a re-skin to an LPF deity - probably an archetype, actually - but not a reskin to every deity that anyone felt like making up to fit their character.</p><p></p><p>(I'll also be going back to revisit my vote on the re-skinning of Princess - I may not end up changing it, but I wasn't feeling very cautious when I looked at it the first time and the discussion on it has me thinking as well).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Maidhc O Casain, post: 5848745, member: 29558"] I'm going to go ahead and vote [B][COLOR="Red"]NO[/COLOR][/B] to streamlined traits. The discussion here and in the thread on the main forums has really gotten me thinking. I don't think the problem is the way traits are handled by Paizo, I think it's the way they've come to be thought of by players (myself included :blush:). Traits were originally introduced as a way to give a character a "hook" into an AP, when the players might have really no idea what they might want or need in their character's background in order for the GM to work them into the game. I [I]love[/I] all of the little situational bonuses that go along with the fluff of the traits. The idea was that you choose the fluff to fit the character, and take the bonus that came along with it. I really like this idea, and I honestly do [I]try[/I] to take at least one of my traits with fluff in mind - trying to match it to my character's personality and background. Sometimes I give in to my wish for a good bonus. (Kalinn's traits come from her martial training with her clan and from her mix of Draconic and Demonic blood and have great tie-in with her background while also giving good bonuses for her; with Pari I was more mechanically motivated and took traits based on bonus rather than fluff. With Brân - my short lived and mostly forgotten Tengu Detective - I was whole hog into the "fit" and took Canter and Skeptic, which are both highly dependent on situation but seemed really cool for his personality and profession. In none of these cases did I "re-skin" an old trait). All the discussion of whether or not to include Perception in the "Capable" list - in particular the contention that making it available "fluff free" would make it a go to trait for almost everyone - has me convinced that traits have become simply another way to boost character power, and that most folks are looking at the mechanical benefit first and the fluff second - and if the fluff doesn't fit, making a proposal for a "re-skin." Some folks like that; I'm not one of them and it just rubs me the wrong way. Are they clunky and unwieldy as written? Yep. But I still like 'em the way they are - clunky and quirky - which is the reason for my vote. Edit: As I re-read this, it occurs to me that I might actually be willing to vote to "close the door" on new traits and stick strictly with those in the APG. In that case, I'd allow re-fluffing those that are specific to Golarion so that they'd fit LPF but I'd vote against allowing multiple re-skins. So "Eyes and Ears of the City" would get a re-skin to an LPF deity - probably an archetype, actually - but not a reskin to every deity that anyone felt like making up to fit their character. (I'll also be going back to revisit my vote on the re-skinning of Princess - I may not end up changing it, but I wasn't feeling very cautious when I looked at it the first time and the discussion on it has me thinking as well). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
Playing the Game
Play by Post
Living Worlds
Living Pathfinder [closed]
Proposal: Streamlined traits
Top