Custom Traits

[Mark Chance]

So, here's the deal. Man-Day Adventures is closing in on the end of the Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil. Once done, I'm taking back the DM hat and running something like a Pathfinder game. I'm also wanting to playtest different rule variations, et cetera.

I like the idea of traits, but (1) I don't want to have to buy this supplement and that supplement to get a list for my players and (2) I don't really want my players to be limited by a list.

So, I'm trying to come up with some solid guidelines to let players make their own traits to personalize their PCs.

Since this is an old thread of mine that I'm bumping, my initial thoughts for a custom trait system are in the next post.

 

[Mark Chance]

One thing that irks me about d20 System games is the ongoing rules bloat. Every supplement that comes out has new feats. Every players guide has new traits. After a while, one started as a internally coherent game system morphs into a chimeric beast made up of a bewildering, ever-changing list of parts, not all of which fit well together.

Part of what I'm trying to do with my new rules is set things up to avoid future rules bloat. So, for example, rather than releasing one set of traits after another, why not have guidelines that let players custom build traits for their characters?

Custom Traits
At 1st level, a character gets one or more custom traits. The general rules for traits are as follows:

A trait can provide a +1 bonus to attack rolls under certain, defined conditions, or
A trait can provide a +1 bonus to damage rolls under certain, defined conditions, or
A trait can provide a +1 bonus to a specific saving throw under certain, defined conditions, or
A trait can provide a +2 bonus to a specific skill check under certain, defined conditions.

For every two points of trait bonuses a character has, he must also have one point of trait penalties. Trait penalties follow the same general rules listed above, but provide a corresponding penalty instead of a bonus.

No character can have more than four points of trait bonuses and two points of trait penalties. Categories of bonuses and penalties can stack. No single trait can provide more than a +2 bonus (for attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws) or a +4 bonus (for skill checks). Likewise, no single trait can provide than a -2 penalty (for attack rolls, damage rolls, and saving throws) or a -4 penalty (for skill checks).

For Example
Eric doesn't like skill consolidation in Pathfinder. He doesn't think his character should be just as good with seeing, hearing, and searching even though all three tasks are based on his character's Perception skill. Eric decides his character has weak sight due to congenital eye defects. To compensate, his character has developed an especially keen sense of hearing. Eric writes up these two traits for DM approval:

Keen Ears
My character enjoys a +4 trait bonus on Perception checks made to hear things.

Weak Eyes
My character suffers a -2 trait penalty on Perception checks made to see things.

Feedback
So, what do you think? What should be added? What should be changed?

 

[Anguish]

In principle there's nothing wrong with this, and plenty good. In practice, the reason why traits and feats keep expanding in scope is because they're flavoured to be topical. Paizo makes a trait for dwarves to gain a bonus to stone/tunneling actions and publishes it in a dwarf sourcebook. Then they make a woodsy trait and stick it in an elf sourcebook. Next, a trait that helps against illusions and sticks it in a sourcebook for clerics of some deity that abhors illusions. And so on.

The only down-side to what you suggest is that it dilutes flavour. There'd be no artificial difference between a dwarf, an elf, or a cleric of See-what's-really-there-ia.

On the other hand, the simple fix is to say that the DM has final say on all traits and can reserve certain things as flavor-inappropriate. If someone creates a tunnel-bred miner's son of a dwarf and writes backstory that the dwarf just yesterday came to the surface, a trait giving woodlands bonuses should be denied.

 

[Mark Chance]

On the other hand, the simple fix is to say that the DM has final say on all traits and can reserve certain things as flavor-inappropriate. If someone creates a tunnel-bred miner's son of a dwarf and writes backstory that the dwarf just yesterday came to the surface, a trait giving woodlands bonuses should be denied.

I get why Paizo keeps publishing the traits, et cetera. That makes perfect sense, especially from a business PoV.

But, still, what you hit on the paragraph above is what I'm aiming at. Of course the DM has veto authority over proposed traits. He can also set parameters, offer suggestions, et cetera, depending on the setting, campaign style, and so on.

So, for example, a DM who's going to be running an island-hopping, South Pacific kind of game could encourage players to come up with traits appropriate to people who'd live in such a setting. So, one player could have a character who spent most of his life aboard ship, and consequently can Climb Like a Monkey (+2 to Climb checks with ropes). Another may have a deep hatred for aquatic elves and is an Aquatic Elf Killer (+1 damage bonus against aquatic elves).

That make sense?

 

[Anguish]

But, still, what you hit on the paragraph above is what I'm aiming at. Of course the DM has veto authority over proposed traits. He can also set parameters, offer suggestions, et cetera, depending on the setting, campaign style, and so on.

So, for example, a DM who's going to be running an island-hopping, South Pacific kind of game could encourage players to come up with traits appropriate to people who'd live in such a setting. So, one player could have a character who spent most of his life aboard ship, and consequently can Climb Like a Monkey (+2 to Climb checks with ropes). Another may have a deep hatred for aquatic elves and is an Aquatic Elf Killer (+1 damage bonus against aquatic elves).

That make sense?

I hear you. And I still agree in general with your idea. But. There's a difference. Additive versus subtractive. If the rules are printed and written in books the gaming group has agreed are "in", then as a player when I design a character I assume that what I build is valid, until told otherwise. With the roll-your-own method, as a player I have to assume each component I create is invalid, until it gets the stamp of DM approval.

It just changes the mind-set when creating a character. And if it's just traits it's no big deal. But personally I prefer to see formalized written rules, even when I'm submitting a finished product for approval. There's a confidence when building out a complete character that if it's all published material, it's probably going to be okay. If it's not... who knows.

Sorry, I need to clarify myself, sadly.

If I sit down and get excited about the idea of a Barbarian who's got a trait that gives him +1 to UMD and UMD is class, then build all around that concept to create a wand & scroll self-buffing awesome guy... then get told that the DM thinks that trait is overpowered or doesn't fit HIS idea of flavour, that sucks. "No, no, in our world, halflings are the special magic guys... your barbarian is a half-orc. Sorry."

I like my arbitrary documented.

 

[Mark Chance]

If I sit down and get excited about the idea of a Barbarian who's got a trait that gives him +1 to UMD and UMD is class, then build all around that concept to create a wand & scroll self-buffing awesome guy... then get told that the DM thinks that trait is overpowered or doesn't fit HIS idea of flavour, that sucks. "No, no, in our world, halflings are the special magic guys... your barbarian is a half-orc. Sorry."

I like my arbitrary documented.

Oh, yeah, I get that. Unfortunately, I can't think of a way to write flexible guidelines that avoid that problem, so I prefer to pretend the problem doesn't really exist.



I'm also growing increasingly convinced that the very first game session for a new campaign ought to be nothing but making up characters with everyone who's going to play in attendance and involved. After reading (and getting to play a bit) some of Atomic Sock Monkey's PDQ stuff, I think making the game more collaborative at the outset is the way to go.

 

[Abciximab]

(1) I don't want to have to buy this supplement and that supplement to get a list for my players and (2) I don't really want my players to be limited by a list.

I understand you do not want to be limited to a list but I just wanted to make sure you knew there was a Pathfinder Trait list from Paizo that was available as a free download. You could use this as a partial list/starting point for traits in your campaign.

Pathfinder Character Traits Web Enhancement located here...

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources

 

[Mark Chance]

Pathfinder Character Traits Web Enhancement located here...

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/resources

Thanks! I do indeed have that PDF. Good stuff therein.

 

[Mark Chance]

I went back to the drawing board a bit. Traits are supposed to be half as powerful as feats. So, with that in mind, a trait could...

...add +1 to attack rolls half the time. This is half as effective as, say, Weapon Focus.

...add +1 to damage all the time (?) or +2 to damage half the time (sort of like a limited Weapon Specialization).

...add +2 to one skill or +1 to two skills.

...add +1 to one save all the time or +2 to one save about half the time.

...add +1 to AC about half the time.

...add +2 to initiative.

Et cetera.

The trick becomes the limitations. Obviously, a trait that gives +1 to attack rolls with a longsword is equal to Weapon Focus unless limited somehow. It also stands to reason that the limitation should actually be limiting.

So, one could go for:

Fancy Fencer
You get a +1 to attack rolls and a +1 dodge bonus to AC when fighting with a one-handed weapon while holding nothing in your off-hand.

(This would be the equivalent of two traits.)

Since I like the idea of traits also imposing penalties, the same character could have:

Wrong-Headed
You suffer a -1 penalty to checks to resist Charisma-based effects originating from female humanoids.

Thoughts?