Flaws [Archive] - Wizards Community - Pages Merged by Solauren

Flaws [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
siders_me
08-24-07, 11:00 AM so what is this i hear about being able to take flaws in exchange for feats? Where are these rules? or are there even such things? Thx
bobothechimp
08-24-07, 11:24 AM Unearthed Arcana, also in the SRD.
mvincent
08-24-07, 11:47 AM Unearthed Arcana, also in the SRD.Variant rule here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm)
Sildatorak
08-25-07, 12:22 PM I would discourage this, btw, if your players tend to powergame at all. Some of the flaws have fairly trivial effects unless you go out of your way to make it suck for the person who took them, and they are definitely not in balance with the power gained by an extra feat if you are allowing any old book.
Fuzzy_Chompers
08-25-07, 01:48 PM 'Flaws' was a system introduced in Unearthed Arcana. Using the Flaw system, one would ascribe a certain attribute to a character that inflicts them with a disadvantage (such as -4 to Spot and Listen) in return for an extra feat at first level.

The system is completely optional, and if your players are looking at it to give themselves more benefits to their characters at low penalties, it may push the power level of the characters above what is normally expected by the system. For example, a Wizard with the Noncombatant flaw (-2 to melee attack rolls... since when do wizards wade into melee?) could effectively get a useful feat by taking a penalty on something they're already bad at. It's something you should think carefully about before implimenting.
heffroncm
08-25-07, 06:05 PM Also, if you read the entry on Flaws, it specifies that you should not let such a thing as a Wizard taking Noncombatant happen. The chapter says that the DM should only allow flaws in areas that will effect the player on a regular basis.
Sildatorak
08-26-07, 04:37 PM Even if the flaws are ones that are coming up regularly, there are still options that will allow them to push the power level. The fighter who has a +1 initiative mod is going to be losing initiative a lot already. If he takes the flaw that gives -6 to initiative checks he will be DFL most of the time, but that isn't really much of a loss compared to him picking up an extra feat.

Personally, I prefer the traits option rather than the flaws option. Because each bonus is tied to a specific penalty, it is less likely to promote abuse.
Kaldric
08-28-07, 03:59 AM If the "noncombatant" flaw isn't intended for ranged combatants... who is it for? Melee combatants? But it's supposed to create a noncombatant.

Anyway, the "noncombatant" flaw is pretty much specifically intended for wizards. It's true they don't wade into melee combat... they're noncombatants... thus the flaw.

It penalizes them when they try to go in for that touch spell, anyway.

If you allow flaws, remember that the characters, for the first couple of levels, may be a bit more powerful than regular first level characters. Adjust accordingly.
Gargs454
08-28-07, 10:47 AM Personally, I would think that the Noncombatant flaw might be more appropriately balanced for say a Cleric (since they can be decent in combat depending on their build) or maybe even the skill monkey rogue. Even a druid perhaps.

A wizard taking it is just the essence of cheese. If the wizard is swinging in combat, things are already going badly anyway. Sure, it hampers his ray attacks and certain other touch attacks, but even that is not all that significant when compared to all the possibilities at the Wizard's disposal.

Its true though that a fighter type is unlikely to want to take the non-combatant flaw.
Puca
08-28-07, 01:57 PM It is clearly cheesy when a wizard takes Noncombatant, but it is no less so when a fighter with a 10 wis takes Inattentive. If my fighter take Shaky, that just means he isnt going to bother with ranged weapons.

When you add flaws, youre adding “cheesiness.” It seems silly to then try to evaluate “levels of cheesiness” within that system. Accept that players are going to try to make the deal as sweet for them as possible by taking the flaws with the least impact.

Sure, they are going to be more powerful, but you must have accepted that fact or you wouldnt have approved a system that granted bonus feats in the first place. Id just roll with it and not try to come up with a standard for which characters can take which flaws.
StevenO
08-28-07, 02:36 PM While flaws can help define a character for roleplaying reason too often they are used to help a characters roll playing. Besides the possibility that the flaw isn't hindering enough to a character remember that some PrCs are restricted in part by the number of feats needed to enter them; two bonus feats at first level could make a PrC available SIX levels (only three for humands) sooner that it may otherwise be.
Prince_of_Parkness
08-29-07, 03:56 AM While flaws can help define a character for roleplaying reason too often they are used to help a characters roll playing. Besides the possibility that the flaw isn't hindering enough to a character remember that some PrCs are restricted in part by the number of feats needed to enter them; two bonus feats at first level could make a PrC available SIX levels (only three for humands) sooner that it may otherwise be.

ITs generally the ranks in X skill that limits someone to a PrCs, not the required feats
StevenO
08-29-07, 04:17 PM Skills ranks may be the limiting factor is some PrCs but feats limit access to others. A warrior based PrC may require seven or eight feats to qualify (I'm not looking up specifics right now.) and a fighter normally has seven feats at 6th level making it possible to enter that PrC at 7th level but with two "bonus" feats it would be possible to meet those requirments much earlier. Granted some of those feats may have BAB requirement to slow them down but it still shows how strong extra feats early can be.
fenixs11
09-09-07, 03:13 PM i personally would like to encourage the use of character flaws, whether they are actually statistical, or purey cinematic.

you don't NEED to make your character gimp to make role-playing more interesting, but sometimes (if you play it right) it can give depth to a character.

but, as said above, some people just use some of this stuff to power game.
(which i wouldn't have a problem with normally, but this is kinda silly)

what happend to character flaws just for the sake of not being perfect???

any of the ones listed above, or maybe even a phobia, or a mild insanity, maybe some kinda quirk.

EX:
i'm playing a dwarf fighter/barbarian that has short term memory loss.
Puca
09-10-07, 05:08 PM Well, theres a difference between a flaw and a Flaw.

A character who is absolutely perfect in every way isnt really possible and would likely be not very fun to play. We give them character flaws because thats more real and more fun.

But a Flaw, with a capital F, is not the same thing because it goes beyond the RP of the character into the mechanics.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
siders_me 08-24-07, 11:00 AM	so what is this i hear about being able to take flaws in exchange for feats? Where are these rules? or are there even such things? Thx
bobothechimp 08-24-07, 11:24 AM	Unearthed Arcana, also in the SRD.
mvincent 08-24-07, 11:47 AM	Unearthed Arcana, also in the SRD.Variant rule here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm)
Sildatorak 08-25-07, 12:22 PM	I would discourage this, btw, if your players tend to powergame at all. Some of the flaws have fairly trivial effects unless you go out of your way to make it suck for the person who took them, and they are definitely not in balance with the power gained by an extra feat if you are allowing any old book.
Fuzzy_Chompers 08-25-07, 01:48 PM	'Flaws' was a system introduced in Unearthed Arcana. Using the Flaw system, one would ascribe a certain attribute to a character that inflicts them with a disadvantage (such as -4 to Spot and Listen) in return for an extra feat at first level. The system is completely optional, and if your players are looking at it to give themselves more benefits to their characters at low penalties, it may push the power level of the characters above what is normally expected by the system. For example, a Wizard with the Noncombatant flaw (-2 to melee attack rolls... since when do wizards wade into melee?) could effectively get a useful feat by taking a penalty on something they're already bad at. It's something you should think carefully about before implimenting.
heffroncm 08-25-07, 06:05 PM	Also, if you read the entry on Flaws, it specifies that you should not let such a thing as a Wizard taking Noncombatant happen. The chapter says that the DM should only allow flaws in areas that will effect the player on a regular basis.
Sildatorak 08-26-07, 04:37 PM	Even if the flaws are ones that are coming up regularly, there are still options that will allow them to push the power level. The fighter who has a +1 initiative mod is going to be losing initiative a lot already. If he takes the flaw that gives -6 to initiative checks he will be DFL most of the time, but that isn't really much of a loss compared to him picking up an extra feat. Personally, I prefer the traits option rather than the flaws option. Because each bonus is tied to a specific penalty, it is less likely to promote abuse.
Kaldric 08-28-07, 03:59 AM	If the "noncombatant" flaw isn't intended for ranged combatants... who is it for? Melee combatants? But it's supposed to create a noncombatant. Anyway, the "noncombatant" flaw is pretty much specifically intended for wizards. It's true they don't wade into melee combat... they're noncombatants... thus the flaw. It penalizes them when they try to go in for that touch spell, anyway. If you allow flaws, remember that the characters, for the first couple of levels, may be a bit more powerful than regular first level characters. Adjust accordingly.
Gargs454 08-28-07, 10:47 AM	Personally, I would think that the Noncombatant flaw might be more appropriately balanced for say a Cleric (since they can be decent in combat depending on their build) or maybe even the skill monkey rogue. Even a druid perhaps. A wizard taking it is just the essence of cheese. If the wizard is swinging in combat, things are already going badly anyway. Sure, it hampers his ray attacks and certain other touch attacks, but even that is not all that significant when compared to all the possibilities at the Wizard's disposal. Its true though that a fighter type is unlikely to want to take the non-combatant flaw.
Puca 08-28-07, 01:57 PM	It is clearly cheesy when a wizard takes Noncombatant, but it is no less so when a fighter with a 10 wis takes Inattentive. If my fighter take Shaky, that just means he isnt going to bother with ranged weapons. When you add flaws, youre adding “cheesiness.” It seems silly to then try to evaluate “levels of cheesiness” within that system. Accept that players are going to try to make the deal as sweet for them as possible by taking the flaws with the least impact. Sure, they are going to be more powerful, but you must have accepted that fact or you wouldnt have approved a system that granted bonus feats in the first place. Id just roll with it and not try to come up with a standard for which characters can take which flaws.
StevenO 08-28-07, 02:36 PM	While flaws can help define a character for roleplaying reason too often they are used to help a characters roll playing. Besides the possibility that the flaw isn't hindering enough to a character remember that some PrCs are restricted in part by the number of feats needed to enter them; two bonus feats at first level could make a PrC available SIX levels (only three for humands) sooner that it may otherwise be.
Prince_of_Parkness 08-29-07, 03:56 AM	While flaws can help define a character for roleplaying reason too often they are used to help a characters roll playing. Besides the possibility that the flaw isn't hindering enough to a character remember that some PrCs are restricted in part by the number of feats needed to enter them; two bonus feats at first level could make a PrC available SIX levels (only three for humands) sooner that it may otherwise be. ITs generally the ranks in X skill that limits someone to a PrCs, not the required feats
StevenO 08-29-07, 04:17 PM	Skills ranks may be the limiting factor is some PrCs but feats limit access to others. A warrior based PrC may require seven or eight feats to qualify (I'm not looking up specifics right now.) and a fighter normally has seven feats at 6th level making it possible to enter that PrC at 7th level but with two "bonus" feats it would be possible to meet those requirments much earlier. Granted some of those feats may have BAB requirement to slow them down but it still shows how strong extra feats early can be.
fenixs11 09-09-07, 03:13 PM	i personally would like to encourage the use of character flaws, whether they are actually statistical, or purey cinematic. you don't NEED to make your character gimp to make role-playing more interesting, but sometimes (if you play it right) it can give depth to a character. but, as said above, some people just use some of this stuff to power game. (which i wouldn't have a problem with normally, but this is kinda silly) what happend to character flaws just for the sake of not being perfect??? any of the ones listed above, or maybe even a phobia, or a mild insanity, maybe some kinda quirk. EX: i'm playing a dwarf fighter/barbarian that has short term memory loss.
Puca 09-10-07, 05:08 PM	Well, theres a difference between a flaw and a Flaw. A character who is absolutely perfect in every way isnt really possible and would likely be not very fun to play. We give them character flaws because thats more real and more fun. But a Flaw, with a capital F, is not the same thing because it goes beyond the RP of the character into the mechanics.