[Ro3 5/15] Traits? lol wut?

[KidSnide]

We've seen a little about traits before:

Blog: Avoiding Choice Traps

Now we could do this another way. We could just bite the bullet and say feats are generally combat focused. Feats reflect customization options that speak directly to the combat pillar. Then we could let skills (delivered through backgrounds) carry the weight of exploration and interaction. And then we could have a third element, call them traits, to address the roleplaying pillar. This ensures that we never have to worry about Power Attack = Fast Hands = Ennui, because they’re all different things.

What's new here is that they are saying that background equally supports the exploration (skills) and interaction (traits) pillars. We don't really have good info on what traits are (if they are all like languages, that could be kind of lame), but that's not surprising for a new mechanic.

We still have a moderately simple character creation process in that ability scores, race, class, theme, background and - I assume - a default equipment package are what you need to pick. Personally, I think choosing a theme and a background will be much easier for new players than picking the more mechanically fiddle feats and skills.

-KS

 

[Ratskinner]

We've seen a little about traits before:

Blog: Avoiding Choice Traps



What's new here is that they are saying that background equally supports the exploration (skills) and interaction (traits) pillars. We don't really have good info on what traits are (if they are all like languages, that could be kind of lame), but that's not surprising for a new mechanic.

I agree, a few weeks ago I speculated that each of the three pillars would be supported by two of the choices you make during character creation:

Class: Combat + Interaction (possibly exploration for rogues.)
Theme: Exploration + Combat
Background: Interaction + Exploration

This article only reinforces my thinking along these lines. Although, I'm not sure how race fits in, unless its part of background.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Personally, I think choosing a theme and a background will be much easier for new players than picking the more mechanically fiddle feats and skills.

I agree, but some want to not deal with either.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I'm really intrigued. A background or theme acting as a sort of non-combat "class" -- a bundle of skills and traits that define that PC in interaction and exploration terms -- and the idea that the system is designed so practically any combination is possible -- that all sounds very exciting to me.

The design space opens up a lot, too. A fighter/Soldier is very different from a fighter/knight and very different from a fighter/scholar or fighter/alchemist. They're all figthers, but they're dramatically different characters.

In the past editions, backgrounds and themes have always been largely an afterthought, and were always far less important than class. If they are given equal footing, that might just be one of the most innovative changes in DDN.

-rg

 

[dkyle]

We've seen a little about traits before:

Blog: Avoiding Choice Traps

Yep. I was about to go hunt this down for the folks upthread. Traits are not a new concept (they're Interaction feats), but it looks like they're looking more seriously at using them. That blog post suggests them as one of several alternative designs.

I'm very glad to see this Ro3. The Feats/Skills/Traits design was my favorite from that blog post. I think putting Skills and Traits together in Background is fine. Even if every Background isn't 50/50 on each, I think that's OK. I think tradeoffs between exploration and interaction are OK, since they're likely to have similar mechanical weight to them. Tradeoffs with combat is what I dislike.

For classes, I hope they'll have similar amounts of non-combat bonuses for each class. I don't want tradeoffs between combat and non-combat within classes, there should be balance of combat vs. combat, non-combat vs. non-combat for classes. This means that Fighters should get Skill/Trait stuff too, not just Rogues.

I agree, but some want to not deal with either.

I think the best solution here is to publish versions of the classes with a default Theme and Background built-in, just part of the progression.

So, for example: (Class/Theme/Background)

Fighter/Soldier/Athlete
Rogue/Cutthroat (Backstab)/Thief (usual thief skills package)
Cleric/Hunter of the Dead (gives Turn Undead, and Mace/Heavy Armor proficiency)/Preacher
Wizard/Mage (the generalist theme; specialist Wizards would be other themes)/Scholar

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe, you could easily play without feats and traits. Like in ADnD, where nonweapon proficiencies were optional!

 

[KidSnide]

Personally, I think choosing a theme and a background will be much easier for new players than picking the more mechanically fiddle feats and skills.

I agree, but some want to not deal with either.

I'm pretty sure at least one of the blog posts said that classes would come with suggested default backgrounds and themes so you could get a more AD&D/BECMI style of character creation.

That all being said, I think the Background / Theme system is a great way of simplifying character creation choices. The complexity I dread now is helping inexperienced players manage the proliferation of feats, skills and traits in-play. The upside, I suppose, is that the character sheet should divide nicely into combat, exploration and interaction abilities.

-KS

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think the best solution here is to publish versions of the classes with a default Theme and Background built-in, just part of the progression.

They have said as much, multiple times. The main example being Fighter / Soldier / Slayer for the default fighter package.

 

[LightPhoenix]

The main reason I see for feats versus traits is that in a unified system inevitably feats that didn't improve your combat ability were weaker than those that did. The whole goal of the theme/feat and background/trait separation is an attempt to separate two competing systems and make them complimentary. I highly approve.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They have said as much, multiple times. The main example being Fighter / Soldier / Slayer for the default fighter package.

I just hope it is presented as being that and working