Proposal: Streamlined traits

[IronWolf]

Perception is the most used skill in the game, and it has a very real combat use since it often determines whether a character acts in a surprise round or not. In that way, Perception is basically "Initiative, the skill," in addition to everything else that Perception does.

If Capableerception were allowed, this trait basically would be a must-have trait for every class without Perception in the game, as it is basically a straight-up +4 to Perception checks (class skill +3, trait bonus +1). Wizards and other casters already have a "trait tax" for the Concentration trait and the Initiative trait; making another one is just adding insult to injury.

If you want to have a trait for Perception as a class skill, I strongly recommend that that a separate trait be made without the additional +1. It's already understood that not all skills are created equal, otherwise there wouldn't be a separate category for Knowledges, so I don't think it's too far a stretch to add this one.

GM: Astute Perception becomes a permanent class skill for you.

But I could still take Eyes and Ears of the City from the APG which appears approved for LPF play, right? That would get me the +1 trait bonus and make Perception a class skill for me.

Trying to figure out if this supplants all other traits or if this is bolted on top of the additional trait system.

 

[DalkonCledwin]

Systole, by your argument alone you would have to get rid of all traits / feats that grant a +2 or higher bonus to initiative as they in effect achieve an even greater affect on combat than a trait that grants a +1 bonus to Perception plus granting Perception as a class skill ever could. Heck even if you were to create a trait that were to grant Perception solely as a Class Skill that doesn't necessarily mean that one has to put ranks into Perception, and even if it does, perception does not by default necessitate that a person is going to detect an opponent before the encounter starts.

For example it depends on if the opponent is in an area where the person making the perception roll could even hear or see the individual that they are attempting to perceive in the first place. If they aren't then the odds of them detecting that individual with a perception check are much much lower.

For example, if I were an Archer firing at the party from one of a castles Arrow Slits on the top Tower along with 4 or 5 other Archers in 4 or 5 other Arrow Slits spread out amongst the other top towers in the Castle, how likely do you think it is that the adventurer's will have a chance of finding exactly which arrow slit a specific individual is firing from, and if they do, they would need to make a further perception roll to just be able to counter attack which would be made even more difficult by the fact that it is near impossible to fire into an arrow slit from ground level. (just as an example of how difficult it could potentially be to gain an advantage off of a single +1 bonus to perception).

 

[Systole]

But I could still take Eyes and Ears of the City from the APG which appears approved for LPF play, right? That would get me the +1 trait bonus and make Perception a class skill for me.

Trying to figure out if this supplants all other traits or if this is bolted on top of the additional trait system.

Eyes and Ears has the requirement that the character be a worshiper of Abadar, who is a Golarion diety.

 

[DalkonCledwin]

Eyes and Ears has the requirement that the character be a worshiper of Abadar, who is a Golarion diety.

It is also at least according to the Pathfinder SRD a fan made trait, which would seem to indicate to me that it is something that we can customize to be used in our world... unless I am missing something here...

 

[IronWolf]

Eyes and Ears has the requirement that the character be a worshiper of Abadar, who is a Golarion diety.

HHhmmm - we need to look at how we have allowed traits defined on the Wiki then. It says if the trait was in the APG then it was on the approved list. It doesn't look like it has explicitly been banned.

 

[Systole]

Systole, by your argument alone you would have to get rid of all traits / feats that grant a +2 or higher bonus to initiative as they in effect achieve an even greater affect on combat than a trait that grants a +1 bonus to Perception plus granting Perception as a class skill ever could. Heck even if you were to create a trait that were to grant Perception solely as a Class Skill that doesn't necessarily mean that one has to put ranks into Perception, and even if it does, perception does not by default necessitate that a person is going to detect an opponent before the encounter starts.

At the risk of being rude, your argument that someone would take a Perception trait and then not put ranks in Perception is crazy talk.

I agree that +4 Perception doesn't mean that you'll always detect an enemy before combat. On the other hand, +2 Initiative doesn't mean you'll always go first, either. It just means you go first more often. Combat-wise, Perception is not the same as Initiative. However, surprise rounds come up often enough that Perception is basically Initiative Lite. Even before every other use that Perception has in the game, a +4 Perception is a significant combat boost in a way that +4 Diplomacy is not.

I think it's pretty clear that +2 Initiative is overpowered. However, I don't think that justifies adding a trait that almost as overpowered but not quite.

It is also at least according to the Pathfinder SRD a fan made trait, which would seem to indicate to me that it is something that we can customize to be used in our world... unless I am missing something here...

And if it were submitted for approval here, it would be subject to the decision of the judges (I believe -- pending IronWolf's comment), and I would have the same objections to it.

 

[DalkonCledwin]

At the risk of being rude, your argument that someone would take a Perception trait and then not put ranks in Perception is crazy talk.

Question Systole... do you always put ranks into every single skill that counts as a class skill on your character for the simple reason that it is a class skill. Or do you by chance more realistically put ranks in skills that you actually know you will use?

While I will admit that Perception is by and far away the single most used skill by the classes that are usually out in the front of the group (and in some cases probably also the classes that are in the rear of the group as well) it is less often used by the more squishy members of the group that tend to stay towards the center of the group.

However that was not my ultimate argument. I was just putting that potential point out there. I for example often take traits that grant bonuses in skills that I want to have a slight bonus in, but which I don't plan on taking ranks in for quite a while, This is especially true if I have a significantly high ability score in the primary attribute of the skill in question and I want to take advantage of that. It is also even more true in cases where I am playing a class with a very small number of skill points available to it and where I want to get as diverse an amount of skills with a decent score as possible. But I suppose not everyone plays with the same outlook on how to apply skill points and skill bonuses.

I agree that +4 Perception doesn't mean that you'll always detect an enemy before combat. On the other hand, +2 Initiative doesn't mean you'll always go first, either. It just means you go first more often. Combat-wise, Perception is not the same as Initiative. However, surprise rounds come up often enough that Perception is basically Initiative Lite. Even before every other use that Perception has in the game, a +4 Perception is a significant combat boost in a way that +4 Diplomacy is not.

Also I would highly suggest not to sell Diplomacy short. While it may not have applications to combat in the same way as Perception does, it does have combat applications regardless.

And if it were submitted for approval here, it would be subject to the decision of the judges (I believe -- pending IronWolf's comment), and I would have the same objections to it.

If Ironwolf is right and it is in the Advanced Players Guide, then I believe it has already been submitted and approved for play as the entirety of the feats in the Advanced Players Guide have been approved for play in Living Pathfinder unless I am very much mistaken.

 

[GlassEye]

Trying to figure out if this supplants all other traits or if this is bolted on top of the additional trait system.

The proposal gives several options: It could be bolted on top of the regular trait system with these new traits in a new 'General' category (selection from 'General' limited or unlimited). Or added to the pool of traits with all categories eliminated. How this works out in play is another story. In many cases the proposed traits would outright eliminate the need for certain published traits. I don't see this as a bad thing: I like the ability to craft the reason for the trait bonus myself; although I imagine that there will end up being some people who ignore that and just take the trait without any sort of in game explanation. That sort of thing is why we had to eventually say that without a background characters wouldn't be approved.

Anyway, one of the advantages I see with this is that it will eliminate a number of proposals for traits of '+1 to skill X and X is a class skill' every time someone finds that the fluff or the categorization of a particular trait doesn't work for them. Not a major benefit, however.

HHhmmm - we need to look at how we have allowed traits defined on the Wiki then. It says if the trait was in the APG then it was on the approved list. It doesn't look like it has explicitly been banned.

There are at least two instances that I know of (one of them my own character) where a religion trait has been taken and reskinned for a specific divine aspect/character. My own use:

Child of Nature (Religion): You have been blessed by an aspect of the Storm (Lesovik) to be as comfortable in the wilderness as you are at home. You gain a +2 trait bonus on Survival checks to find food and water, and a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (nature) checks. Survival is always a class skill for you.​

I don't think this is a bad thing but then I don't think anyone has attempted to abuse it yet. With the wide open nature of our pantheons I think it could easily be abused if someone were so inclined.

 

[Systole]

Question Systole... do you always put ranks into every single skill that counts as a class skill on your character for the simple reason that it is a class skill. Or do you by chance more realistically put ranks in skills that you actually know you will use?

I put ranks in every skill that I pick up as a class skill by way of a trait, yes.

While I will admit that Perception is by and far away the single most used skill by the classes that are usually out in the front of the group (and in some cases probably also the classes that are in the rear of the group as well) it is less often used by the more squishy members of the group that tend to stay towards the center of the group.

Middle of the group gets Perceptions on surprise rounds as well. A first round Haste/Obscurining Mist/Glitterdust/Grease from a wizard (who does not have Perception and will be first in line for this trait) can make a world of difference.

If Ironwolf is right and it is in the Advanced Players Guide, then I believe it has already been submitted and approved for play as the entirety of the feats in the Advanced Players Guide have been approved for play in Living Pathfinder unless I am very much mistaken.

The trait as written in the APG requires the character be a worshiper of a god that is explicitly not allowed in LPF due to it being a Golarion diety. It would at least need to be reskinned before anyone in LPF could use it.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

I'm going to go ahead and vote NO 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 ).

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 love 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 try 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).