Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lago AM3P 03-14-04, 03:00 PM	Everyone knows that flaws already pretty much suck. For example, you can play a WIZARD who takes the flaws of a -2 penalty of melee attack rolls and ranged attack rolls... and then you spend the rest of your career attacking with targeted spells or area spells. Or you can be a mounted paladin who has his base speed reduced by half, or you could be a DRUID. For less complex cheese, you can either take a hit to something you're already undisputedly the best at or something that you would suck at no matter which way you sliced it. Or you can be a character who already has stuff they're really good be reduced by a near-unnoticable amount, like rogues taking a -2 penalty to dexterity, strength, and constitution checks or clerics taking a -1 hit to their AC. Or you could be a monk, who stands no chance in ranged combat anyway, to take a -2 penalty to ranged attacks. Most insulting of all, there will just be some characters who will actually be noticably hurt no matter which flaws they pick. Since there are characters in the party who will not care at all, this makes certain members of the party weaker than others right out of the gate, which is just bad design. Do I need to draw you a frickin' diagram?
Dartanel 03-14-04, 03:29 PM	Well, you see, that's why there's an entire sidebar dedicated to explaining to a DM how bad an idea flaws are, how easy they are to abuse, and things to do to make sure they're not just free feats.
stone_dog 03-14-04, 03:34 PM	Yes, they are like flaws in any other game. If they aren't a disadvantage to the character the DM is under an obligation to disallow them. Now they are just plain clunky in D&D terms, but that is a different problem.
Woas 03-14-04, 05:01 PM	I alllow flaws in my game. However I changed it a bit. Instead of 1 flaw = 1 feat, it is 2 flaws = 1 feat. People seem to like that and most only take the first 2 flaws if any...
Nei 03-14-04, 06:08 PM	^ That sounds like a reasonable suggestion. 2 flaws = 1 feat sounds more balanced, but I'm interested in which two flaws your players take together, and what class do they play with that? (A wizard specialized in template-spells can have a melee penalty flaw and a ranged penalty flaw, and suffer no disadvantages because of it.) I have no doubt that it's more balanced, but I'd like to know exactly how balanced it is. The idea I'm thinking of myself is letting the players roll for their flaw at random, and allow them one reroll. Nei
Wil_Hyral 03-14-04, 06:27 PM	This thread is giving Lenin and Soviet Communism way too much credit, just for the record.
Woas 03-14-04, 08:22 PM	Lets see.... The rogue took the roll twice for concealment one, and the other one that gave -2 to ranged attack rolls.. Murky eyed and Shakey I believe they are called. This kind of pushes himself into melee combat. And if the opponent has any concealment, he will be very limited cause he will lose his sneak attack and will have to roll twice for the concealment... I believe he took the Sneaky feat or two weapon fighting for the flaws. I believe its balanced because the character gives up some to hit on ranged attacks which hinders and type of knife throwing or arrow shooting. And also hinders the character by having to deal with Double concealment for the trade off of having overall better two weapon fighting ability. The cleric (who is playing the Cloistered Cleric variant) of the party also has some flaws. The main one was Non-Combatant. He takes -2 to his attack roles. This doesn't look like much cause a Cloistered Cleric doesn't really do much combat anyway... but when he did find himself in combat, he planned to use a sling. However he cannot juggle enough feats around to grab precise shot and everything. So his sling attacks are not really that great without precise shot, etc. Thus he finds himself entering melee combat if need be with his quarter staff and taking the -2 to attack. The other flaw he took was vulneralbe (sp?). Which is the -1 to AC. This hasn't really been that bad of a flaw... it fits his character background and all. I don't think its broken, but its definetly one sided. I could see it being abused since its only -1 AC... a buckler could cover for you. But like I said it fits the character well and overall it could come back to bite him one day when I roll to hit him and get beat his AC by 1 point ;) Rolling for flaws wouldn't be a bad idea. The only thing is that my players have characters that are pretty developed and the random element doesn't really apply. But I can definently see where it could be a cool idea. Espically rolling up random NPCs for the party to meet! @Wil: What? I think the comment went over my head. Has someone been miss-spelling something or something?
Lago AM3P 03-14-04, 10:44 PM	Rather than have flaws like mounted paladins taking hits to their land speed, why not, instead, make flaws that correspond to a list of bonus feats rather than just any damn feats? For example, if you take a -1 to AC, that should give you weapon focus. If you take a -3 penalty to will saves, that should give you endurance or great fortitude or some crap. And flaws should specifically correspond to the factors which give people minimum and involuntary diversity: skills, attack, damage, AC, hp, and saves. Granted, there will still be some people who slip through the cracks, but it's better than the current system of a grey elf coming out with spell focus, greater spell focus, and spellcasting prodigy and having a base save DC of 18 at level 1.
Hengwrt Ellesmere 03-14-04, 11:56 PM	Originally posted by Wil_Hyral This thread is giving Lenin and Soviet Communism way too much credit, just for the record. :confused: Could you explain, or are you just being silly?
Tigald 03-15-04, 04:58 AM	I think you can easily abuse Flaws. My Players do that. They take the -2 on ranged attack, when playing monks, and -2 on melee when the play wizards (of course using spells without touch attacks). And both -1 to Ac Flaw and the murky eyed flaw are taken everytime, because there isn't so much, that they give up here. So i came to the conclusion that this dosen't work for me and my group. I decided that if they necessarily need a bonus feat, they get a flaw at random. Not only is this balanced, it also gives a character much more flavor than the traits do and you can roleplay your flaws. But i will expand the small list in UA with the flaws created in a topic here in the forum, so there is more versality Tigald
Salla 03-15-04, 11:24 AM	If someone takes a flaw that isn't a drawback, it's up to you to MAKE it a drawback. Everybody takes Murky-Eyed, so their ranged attacking's at -2? Set up a nice crossbow ambush off some high cliffs or some other hard-to-reach place where they have to use ranged weapons to fight back. Wizard takes both attack-roll reducers? Use some in-close attackers so he can't drop Area Effect spells without pegging teammates, and use foes with good saves (and/or Cloaks of Resistance). Since most rays don't allow saves, he'll be wishing he could target better. The -1 AC flaw should probably be -2 to more-than-counteract Dodge; still, an Anti-Magic field will make every bit of AC that much more valuable. Also, use Touch Attacks and Ranged Touch Attacks if people are engaging in mega-armor bonuses. Mounted Paladin took the Slow flaw? Unhorse him with a Trip attack, or kill/hold/stun the horse. That's just good tactics in general, much less against a Paladin with arthritis in the ankles. Of course, you shouldn't do this CONSTANTLY; that's just picking on 'em. But if, every now and then, you can make a player shout "I wish I hadn't taken that stupid flaw!", you've evened things out.
Nifft 03-15-04, 01:10 PM	I allow Flaws in my game. They have no mechanical advantage, only mechanical disadvantages. However, if a PC RP's a flaw well -- it affects his course of action in a significant and hopefully amusing way -- then he gets extra RP XP. -- N
Vaelan 03-15-04, 02:09 PM	-2 AC to balance the +1 AC from Dodge? I suppose that would make sense, but for one fact: Dodge only applies to one attacker per round while the flaw applies to all attackers.
Salla 03-16-04, 08:09 AM	Originally posted by Vaelan -2 AC to balance the +1 AC from Dodge? I suppose that would make sense, but for one fact: Dodge only applies to one attacker per round while the flaw applies to all attackers. Actually, that's the point. A flaw is supposed to be a flaw no matter what; if you're only facing one opponent, then the Dodge feat neutralizes the flaw completely. On the other hand, yes, that is a colossal nitpick. :)
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-16-04, 12:53 PM	Yeah, flaws are a poorly thought out idea. Mechanical effects generally are poor flaws. I prefer the mental and physical style of flaws that other systems use, like GURPS and the whitewolf system. Those actually add depth to the character with a disadvantage a DM can usually find a way to employ in game, and it's a bit harder to compensate for them. Having a reduced movement speed isn't that bad, having only one leg on the other hand is going to really hurt most characters. And of course, the mental flaws that force the character to do certain things, like phobias, compulsive behavior and so forth always tend to be a real disadvantage regardless of someone's class. The UA flaws are nothing more than a min/maxer's dream because they are purely game effects and don't add to character depth at all. A poor idea to say the least, but then again for those DMs who want to just randomly power up their PCs and make min/maxers happy, there's the flaw system. It isn't something I'd want to use in my game without some revision.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-16-04, 02:01 PM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth The UA flaws are nothing more than a min/maxer's dream because they are purely game effects and don't add to character depth at all. A poor idea to say the least, but then again for those DMs who want to just randomly power up their PCs and make min/maxers happy, there's the flaw system. It isn't something I'd want to use in my game without some revision. So, giving something the PC's to voluntarily RP off of doesn't add to character depth at all? Someone who has, say, the AC penalty flaw wouldn't have to, under any circumstances, roleplay the fact he just plain is inept when it comes to his defense? That is just utter nonsense. The whole reason flaws are there is to give characters a bit more depth. It's fairly unrealistic every single character, as written in the standard D&D rules, will have absolutly no flaws whatsoever. Are we really to believe every hero is flawless? That some just aren't slightly below the norm with certain things? As for min/maxing, that is a fairly bad excuse to detract a new idea in D&D. I've noticed quite often anytime most anything new is introduced, the first words screamed out and uttered relentlessly are "OMG! Now look at how everyone can min/max I do not like it!". You do realize flaws are primarily for a roleplaying, correct? Yes, they do give a bonus for being taken, but the penalty will always be there. And they give players new option to explore, new ideas to try, and perhaps might even introduce concepts they might not have otherwise tried to roleplay. And as a GM, it is also your duty to exploit any flaws the PC might take. This does not mean you should relentlessly pound any PC who so much as looks at a flaw, but that you should remind them via in-game roleplaying, situations, etc, that they aren't 100% perfect like the standard characters usually are, at least "by the book". Also, there are some flaws that will hurt you no matter who you are or what you do. Like the one that provides massive spot/listen penalties. Those are two skills that everyone depends upon, and as such, will always hinder a character, no matter the situation. You need to rethink the flaw system before dismissing and denouncing it, because it's evident you clearly don't understand it's purpose. They're more for roleplaying than anything else.
Soulmage 03-16-04, 02:18 PM	I've just edited the list of flaws so that only the ones that would present a penalty to most characters are available. Furthermore, they have to pick flaws before they even generate stats or anything else about the character. That was they have to decide in advance which stat they are reducing (if any) and can't play games with it after they know what their stats look like. Finally, I never allow a character to take more than 1 flaw. Anyway, here's my rules on using flaws: Character Generation 1. Select Character Flaw Players have the option of selecting a single flaw for their character when they begin the character creation process. A character who takes a flaw starts with 1 additional bonus feat at first level. The rules for Character Flaws can be found in the Unearthed Arcana on page 91. The flaw must be selected before character creation begins. If later developments during character generation make taking the flaw impossible, then the flaw and bonus feat are dropped. The following flaws are available in the Black Company Campaign. Flaws should be listed with feats on the character sheet. Brittle Bones – You are susceptible to severe injury. Any critical threats rolled against you are automatically criticals without the need for a confirmation roll. Frail – You are thin and weak. You gain 1 less hit point per level with a minimum of zero. You must have a Constitution of 4 or higher to take this flaw. Magic Allergy – Magic has a greater effect on you than normal. You take a -2 to all saving throws vs. spells or spell-like effects. Meager Fortitude – You are sickly and weak of stomach. You take a -3 penalty to all your Fortitude saves. Noncombatant – You are relatively inept at combat. You take a -2 to all your “to-hit” rolls. Pathetic – You are weaker in an attribute than you should be. Select an attribute at the time you choose this flaw. Reduce that ability by 2 after ability generation is complete. Your ability score modifiers must total 7 or less in order to take this flaw. Poor Reflexes – You sometimes “zig” when you should have “zagged.” You take a -3 penalty to all your reflex saves. Slow – You move exceptionally slowly. Reduce your base land speed by 50%, rounding down to the next 5 foot increment. You must have a base speed of 20+ to take this flaw. Slow Learner – You have difficulty learning new skills. You gain 1 less skill point at each level (-4 skill points at 1st level) and cannot gain more than 4 skill points per level. You cannot take this feat if you gain less than 2 skill points per level. Slow to React – You are slow to react to danger. You take a -6 penalty to your initiative checks. Unlucky – Things just don’t seem to go your way. You take a -1 penalty to all saving throws. Vulnerable – You are not good at defending yourself. You take a -1 penalty to Armor Class. Weak Will – You are highly susceptible to suggestion and are easily duped. You take a -3 penalty to all your Will saves.
Lago AM3P 03-16-04, 08:29 PM	I can tell you right now, if I was a wizard, I would take Pathetic and Slow. And then after casting overland flight and polymorph, I would laugh. Remember, if you're going to have flaws at ALL, you can never ever have a single one be completely bypassable or partially avoid (for example, see how much a rogue with a ring of blink cares about the -1 to AC) by any means in a PC's career. Otherwise it's more power for free and ironically the more restrictive you make your flaws, the more unfair it is to everyone in the party when a certain flaw is of no consequence to a character. I mean, why should a druid wildshaped into an air elemental who took slow and brittle bones get effectively free feats at all? The whole reason flaws are there is to give characters a bit more depth. It's fairly unrealistic every single character, as written in the standard D&D rules, will have absolutly no flaws whatsoever. Are we really to believe every hero is flawless? That some just aren't slightly below the norm with certain things? As for min/maxing, that is a fairly bad excuse to detract a new idea in D&D. I've noticed quite often anytime most anything new is introduced, the first words screamed out and uttered relentlessly are "OMG! Now look at how everyone can min/max I do not like it!". Or maybe we should just ditch the idea entirely. D&D expects a minimum amount of diversity out of all characters, yet with each supplement, characters who overspecialize get more bennies. No real min-maxxer takes feats like great fortitude and lightning reflexes anymore, because there is such a dearth of such really cool ideas out there that you can saturate the character you want even more. Why do you think it is that no matter how one-sided your character is, you always get a skill point, hp, BAB, and saves? The idea of flaws aiding roleplaying by giving characters depth eludes me frickin' completely. No matter what pretty words you give to it, letting players trade power in one area for a bonus in another area makes more one-sided characters. And as a GM, it is also your duty to exploit any flaws the PC might take. This does not mean you should relentlessly pound any PC who so much as looks at a flaw, but that you should remind them via in-game roleplaying, situations, etc, that they aren't 100% perfect like the standard characters usually are, at least "by the book". Also, there are some flaws that will hurt you no matter who you are or what you do. Like the one that provides massive spot/listen penalties. Those are two skills that everyone depends upon, and as such, will always hinder a character, no matter the situation. Note that characters will at no point take flaws that actually seriously hurt them. No fighter is going to take noncombatant, and no rogue is seriously going to take slow learner. Unless you make all of the flaws universally suck harder than not taking them, then it's just more power for free. How much is debatable, but realize that you're increasing the gap between non min-maxxed and min-maxxed characters by doing this. As you might have noticed, even having only one flaw that only one character type might want to take is horribly unfair, as this is just rewarding the player for no reason other than you felt like it. But if all of the flaws suck, then no one will take them and there's no reason to have them in the game. Except to increase the gap between regular people and the powergamers, which I highly disapprove of. Mechanical effects generally are poor flaws. I prefer the mental and physical style of flaws that other systems use, like GURPS and the whitewolf system. Those actually add depth to the character with a disadvantage a DM can usually find a way to employ in game, and it's a bit harder to compensate for them. Roleplay flaws tend to be even WORSE than mechanical ones. They tend to do these things: 1) They often reward players for stuff they wanted to do anyway. If you wanted to play a stuck up, rude druid with no patience for any humanoids, you just play it. Getting a free feat for it is inconceivable. Some people will actually want to play characters with weak willpowers and thus bend easily to the mind-influencing powers of evil. Why should they get a feat for it? 2) They encourage weaselling. As anyone who cheats with the dice will tell you, the best way to get away with it is to roll low when it doesn't matter, like making spot checks as the party wizard, but then roll well when it's actually important like with swinging a damn sword. If you have the roleplay flaw Violent Temper, expect that to come up when the character is in a bar with 1st level commoners or when he's coup de gracing goblins taking down by sleep or when it becomes fun for everyone playing (like getting an audience in front of a snooty king), but not when it's actually inconvenient. 3) For people who don't weasel or get rewarded for things that they already want to do, the third kind of flaw is the kind everyone pays for. The party-imposing flaw. This is probably the worse kind of flaw there is, and the majority of the flaws tend to fall in this category. Like if the ROGUE took the Mute flaw, and required everyone to take the appropriate skills to talk with their hands and everyone put up with the consequence of not being able to be warned in time and the cleric had to forgo picking up knowledge: religion to pick up diplomacy... you see what I mean?
jagggar 03-16-04, 08:53 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P 1) They often reward players for stuff they wanted to do anyway. If you wanted to play a stuck up, rude druid with no patience for any humanoids, you just play it. Getting a free feat for it is inconceivable. Some people will actually want to play characters with weak willpowers and thus bend easily to the mind-influencing powers of evil. Why should they get a feat for it? I wouldn't consider the first case a flaw. I'd call it playing the role of a stuck-up. The second example sounds to me like it would be a flaw based on mechanics, or the role of someone who was tempted to be evil. Neither of those in my opinion would costitute a flaw. The flaw should be something the DM has the most control over as opposed to something the player does.
Lago AM3P 03-16-04, 08:55 PM	Like? I assure you that for almost any thing that would be horrible and evil and rotten that can happen to a character and still make him a contributing member of the party, there will be someone who wants to play a character like that anyway. So he's still getting more power for no reason.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-16-04, 09:14 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P Roleplay flaws tend to be even WORSE than mechanical ones. They tend to do these things: 1) They often reward players for stuff they wanted to do anyway. If you wanted to play a stuck up, rude druid with no patience for any humanoids, you just play it. Getting a free feat for it is inconceivable. Some people will actually want to play characters with weak willpowers and thus bend easily to the mind-influencing powers of evil. Why should they get a feat for it? Because if they are likely to be turned to evil and thus turn against the party, this is a disadvantage, though this would probably be covered in the weak will flaw. As for the rude character, generally rudeness itself isn't a flaw, it's a personality trait. A flaw has to carry a natural penalty of some kind. If on the other hand his flaw was that he couldn't tolerate the presence of humanoids at all, and refused aid from them, and had to make a check of some kind to talk to them at all, now it becomes more of a penalty. 2) They encourage weaselling. As anyone who cheats with the dice will tell you, the best way to get away with it is to roll low when it doesn't matter, like making spot checks as the party wizard, but then roll well when it's actually important like with swinging a damn sword. If you have the roleplay flaw Violent Temper, expect that to come up when the character is in a bar with 1st level commoners or when he's coup de gracing goblins taking down by sleep or when it becomes fun for everyone playing (like getting an audience in front of a snooty king), but not when it's actually inconvenient. No, it has to be a flaw that has some kind of mechanical basis that the DM can invoke. So if the BBEG wizard insults the PC, he has to make a will save or some other check or succumb to his violent temper. It's much like frenzy in vampire. You can and will frenzy at inopportune times if you take the hot tempered flaw. It isn't a choice "hey I'm gonna frenzy now", it's "oh hell I just blew my frenzy roll... now I'm screwed because I'm attacking someone I can't beat in a blind rage." For a flaw to actually be a flaw, as opposed to a personality trait, it has to be something that can and will screw over a PC when he doesn't want it to. It isn't something that a PC chooses to invoke, it's something that might happen whenever the DM deems a check is necessary. Which could be in the presence of the town drunk or the arrogant lich king. 3) For people who don't weasel or get rewarded for things that they already want to do, the third kind of flaw is the kind everyone pays for. The party-imposing flaw. This is probably the worse kind of flaw there is, and the majority of the flaws tend to fall in this category. Like if the ROGUE took the Mute flaw, and required everyone to take the appropriate skills to talk with their hands and everyone put up with the consequence of not being able to be warned in time and the cleric had to forgo picking up knowledge: religion to pick up diplomacy... you see what I mean? Right, I do think certain flaws like mute are bad ideas for this reason. However, I don't think most flaws fall in this catagory. I hardly think the majority of flaws have this problem.
jagggar 03-16-04, 09:24 PM	Character's signifigant other is a 1st level commoner and thanks to Character's fame, is often targeted (barmaid of the week wouldn't count). Obviously there'd have to be someone who would be willing to play such a character, otherwise, why would there even be a consideration of flaws in any game? If I know that a player wouldn't focus on role-playing at all, I probably wouldn't let them have a role-playing flaw. Maybe not with your group, but with some groups, they are workable, and those will be the groups that use them.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-16-04, 09:38 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P I can tell you right now, if I was a wizard, I would take Pathetic and Slow. And then after casting overland flight and polymorph, I would laugh. Except that most GM's would make the flaws still apply even in a changed form. After all, it's still the character, no matter what form it has, and there is no reason shapechanging should automatically remove any hinderance the flaws grant. Maybe offset some of them, but not remove them completely. Remember, if you're going to have flaws at ALL, you can never ever have a single one be completely bypassable or partially avoid (for example, see how much a rogue with a ring of blink cares about the -1 to AC) by any means in a PC's career. Magic items can be surpressed, destroyed, removed, etc. Any number of things can stop or avoid them. But a flaw is permanent. It doesn't go away, ever. Otherwise it's more power for free and ironically the more restrictive you make your flaws, the more unfair it is to everyone in the party when a certain flaw is of no consequence to a character. I mean, why should a druid wildshaped into an air elemental who took slow and brittle bones get effectively free feats at all? See above for how to handle flaws and wildshaping/changing/whatever alternate form taking medium you wish to use. Or maybe we should just ditch the idea entirely. D&D expects a minimum amount of diversity out of all characters, yet with each supplement, characters who overspecialize get more bennies. Or maybe we shouldn't ditch the idea. Maybe you should give it a chance, beyond looking at it and simply saying "Well, someone might abuse them, so they are evil!". Realistically, someone can abuse pretty much any facet of any single game if they so much as put even 10 minutes of work into it, at most. Look at how many other games incorporate some system of flaws and advantages. Legend of the Five Rings. Shadowrun. GURPS. Big Eyes Small Mouth (not sure about the d20 version, though). Deadlands (also not sure about the d20 version). Vampire. Werewolf. Hunter. The Jovian Chronicles. Heroes Unlimited. Champions. And many, many, many more. Are these games any more intrinstically unbalanced because they give some minor bonus for taking a penalty? No. Does it imbalance D&D because some people like these rules and wish to use them? No. Are they fine as is? Yes. Are they perfect? No. Nothing is ever perfect, but as is, they are a fine addition to any game. No real min-maxxer takes feats like great fortitude and lightning reflexes anymore, Just an idle comment, but I've never seen anyone ever take those feats unless they were new to the game, or those feats were required for another feat or PrC. ^_~ The idea of flaws aiding roleplaying by giving characters depth eludes me frickin' completely. If you honestly cannot see how or why such things would aid in roleplaying, then perhaps you need to step back and examine them a fair bit better. They very idea behind them is to aid roleplaying. The mechanical bonus is simply there because most people would never willingly take something that was 100% disadvantage, save for a very few hardcore roleplayers (whom I seem blessed to have around me, which is just pure luck but welcome nontheless). No matter what pretty words you give to it, letting players trade power in one area for a bonus in another area makes more one-sided characters. A character is as lopsided or as varied as you make it. Everyone is different, and you shouldn't hold such a singleminded view that everyone will make thier character as "one-sided" as you think. Not everyone thinks in terms of power or other nonsense. It's a game, after all. It's played for fun. Some people wish to try new things, others just want something to spice up thier character, and others might just like the idea of it all. Note that characters will at no point take flaws that actually seriously hurt them. No fighter is going to take noncombatant, and no rogue is seriously going to take slow learner. Right. Because everyone is obviously a diehard powergamer, and of course everyone will always fall into that stereotype. *sighs* Unless you make all of the flaws universally suck harder than not taking them, then it's just more power for free. The flaws already are 1.5 to 2 times as bad as the corrosponding feat. A feat which gives +2 to two skills has a flaw that gives -4 to two skills. A feat which gives +2 to a save has a flaw that gives -3 to a save, etc. That seems more than a fair trade. Anyway, I'll cover the rest of my points and counterpoints later. I have things I must be doing.
Lago AM3P 03-16-04, 09:43 PM	Because if they are likely to be turned to evil and thus turn against the party, this is a disadvantage, though this would probably be covered in the weak will flaw. As for the rude character, generally rudeness itself isn't a flaw, it's a personality trait. A flaw has to carry a natural penalty of some kind. If on the other hand his flaw was that he couldn't tolerate the presence of humanoids at all, and refused aid from them, and had to make a check of some kind to talk to them at all, now it becomes more of a penalty. There are several prestige classes based around this concept of totally hating other people in the party. In fact, some people (like myself) actually want to play extremely misogynist characters like this. Why should they have an extrinsic motivation for playing the character they wanted to play while people who don't want to be humanoid-haters get left out in the cold? No, it has to be a flaw that has some kind of mechanical basis that the DM can invoke. So if the BBEG wizard insults the PC, he has to make a will save or some other check or succumb to his violent temper. It's much like frenzy in vampire. You can and will frenzy at inopportune times if you take the hot tempered flaw. It isn't a choice "hey I'm gonna frenzy now", it's "oh hell I just blew my frenzy roll... now I'm screwed because I'm attacking someone I can't beat in a blind rage." See: Corallary one, getting bonuses for playing the character you want to play or in extreme cases (like forsakers) see corallary three: taking the party with you. Character's signifigant other is a 1st level commoner and thanks to Character's fame, is often targeted (barmaid of the week wouldn't count). Obviously there'd have to be someone who would be willing to play such a character, otherwise, why would there even be a consideration of flaws in any game? A helpless loved one often targeted by the forces of evil and a protagonist is significantly impaired by the desire to protect a SO? This isn't just a fantasy cliche, this has been a staple of any sort of entertainment since the beginning of time. And there's a good reason for it, too, as it gets to satisfy people's desires to see a strong protagonist exhibit gushy Big Sibling or Prince Charming qualities and to heighten the tension. This is good and all, but getting a reward for it is also definitionally unfair, unless everyone gets rewards for playing the character they want to play. Which... is really no different from our current system of everyone just picking what you want to roleplay and getting mathematical benefits just because you're playing the game. Why should having a really cool roleplay hook that gets your character more spotlight and makes your alter ego more like how you envisioned the character to be give you some sort of mathematical benefit?
jagggar 03-16-04, 10:05 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P A helpless loved one often targeted by the forces of evil and a protagonist is significantly impaired by the desire to protect a SO? This isn't just a fantasy cliche, this has been a staple of any sort of entertainment since the beginning of time. And there's a good reason for it, too, as it gets to satisfy people's desires to see a strong protagonist exhibit gushy Big Sibling or Prince Charming qualities and to heighten the tension. This is good and all, but getting a reward for it is also definitionally unfair, unless everyone gets rewards for playing the character they want to play. Which... is really no different from our current system of everyone just picking what you want to roleplay and getting mathematical benefits just because you're playing the game. Why should having a really cool roleplay hook that gets your character more spotlight and makes your alter ego more like how you envisioned the character to be give you some sort of mathematical benefit? In the idealistic, romantic world in my head, when turmoil invades, there's a little equation that usually happens: Love = Stupid Actions If you've got a DM who's not allowing anyone to rejoin once they've died, and has effectively nerfed spells that bring people back to life, role-playing love to it's full extent is effectively a wish to leave the game. A 5th level character powered by love would go up against epic-level villains if the note delivered was "come immeadiately or you'll wish we'd kill SO." (Again, world in my head.) BESM d20 has defects, taken at the "medium level" will give you one feat. (One of my favorites being Girl/Guy Magnet. Try that move silently check with a squealing fangirl on your tail.)
Lago AM3P 03-16-04, 10:18 PM	Except that most GM's would make the flaws still apply even in a changed form. After all, it's still the character, no matter what form it has, and there is no reason shapechanging should automatically remove any hinderance the flaws grant. Maybe offset some of them, but not remove them completely. Except that's actually not what the rule says at all. Brittle bones makes criticals more likely to happen and slow reduces your land speed. Which is almost completely irrelevant to a druid who spends all day in air elemental form. I can't tell you how much an unspoken system of arbitarily changing rules on your players because you feel that they are getting too much power from their own choice is no good. Actually, we all run that risk when we introduce new feats and we are expected to do that, but if you're introducing something and expecting to have to do that right out of the gate, then you're sucking. Magic items can be surpressed, destroyed, removed, etc. Any number of things can stop or avoid them. But a flaw is permanent. It doesn't go away, ever. But having always-on or reliable benefits is just part of the game. Having it dissapear with more disasterous effects because they chose another element (like almost every damn fighter picking up a +5 flaming shocking greatswords rather than two +4 greatswords and having one for emergencies) is always a threat, but the gigantic swings in how the game runs are almost always way bigger than a mere flaw. But that's just how the game works; ask anyone who has had their precious greatsword broken to bits. And in the meantime, while we're waiting for this catastrophic event (also bypassable) to inexplicably make everything all right in Game Balance Land, the gap between powergamers and normal people. Are these games any more intrinstically unbalanced because they give some minor bonus for taking a penalty? No. Does it imbalance D&D because some people like these rules and wish to use them? No. Are they fine as is? Yes. Are they perfect? No. Nothing is ever perfect, but as is, they are a fine addition to any game. Anything that gives more power to a certain group of players and/or takes away old power or denies new power to others is definitionally unbalanced. However, oftentimes, we don't really care about things like +1 longswords and mithral chain shirts pushing the game balance spectrum to the right. We just pretty much trust everything to work out in the end with checks and balances. Of course, check out the numerous 'Class X sucks!' or 'Class Y is overpowered!' to see the flaw in this method. Extra feats nowadays are a really powerful addition to the game. I see no benefit in adding a system that will give people more power for either picking benefits that oftentimes they will A) Not want, but are compelled to pick because they don't have enough raw power for their character design. B) Already want, but are getting free power for it. or C) Taking the party down with them because it fits the character design or because they don't scrutinize every number. I see no advantage to such a system. If you want to give characters more power for having characters with depth, just give everyone more feats and compel them to roleplay better. That's way more fair than this system of 'give up in one area and gain in another, gain a lot if you can do math!' If you honestly cannot see how or why such things would aid in roleplaying, then perhaps you need to step back and examine them a fair bit better. They very idea behind them is to aid roleplaying. The mechanical bonus is simply there because most people would never willingly take something that was 100% disadvantage, save for a very few hardcore roleplayers (whom I seem blessed to have around me, which is just pure luck but welcome nontheless). If we're ever in a position where we have to give certain people more game-breaking power and force others to sit in the corner because we feel that their fictional constructs aren't as of yet interesting enough, then the munchkins have already won. I can't really help anyone whose game has reached this point. A character is as lopsided or as varied as you make it. Everyone is different, and you shouldn't hold such a singleminded view that everyone will make thier character as "one-sided" as you think. Actually, this is not true. Thankfully, in D&D, there is diversity aside from non-mechanical qualities of your character. Say there are two high level, but low-intelligence fighters. They only get one skill point per level. One is built exactly like the current fighter, but he has just enough skill points so that he can take a class skill of his choice. He still sucks at it, however, because the fighter skill list is weak and everyone else is so good at required skills that no one cares. The other one took a flaw, Inept, which gave him a +2 bonus to attack rolls but he never got any skill points. Ever. Which fighter is generally going to come out ahead? Which fighter is nonetheless going to be the more diverse one? Flaws do the exact same thing. They make your character less diverse in exchange for more raw power. I thought that having a diverse and dynamic character was supposed to AID roleplay, not hinder it. Not everyone thinks in terms of power or other nonsense. It's a game, after all. It's played for fun. Some people wish to try new things, others just want something to spice up thier character, and others might just like the idea of it all. If that's the case, then why have yet another a cynical mathematical construct, which is what the current system of flaws IS. The flaws already are 1.5 to 2 times as bad as the corrosponding feat. A feat which gives +2 to two skills has a flaw that gives -4 to two skills. A feat which gives +2 to a save has a flaw that gives -3 to a save, etc. That seems more than a fair trade. Well, yes. That's what I'm getting at. No one takes the damn noncombatant flaw and then picks the weapon focus feat. No rogue picks up the inattentive flaw and then turns around and picks up the alertness feat. If they are even considering a flaw, ANY flaw they want to pick up in another area. The area doesn't even have to be a bipolar opposite to another, like trading attack rolls for spells. A lawful good, honest to the core rogue may take a -4 penalty to bluff and sleight of hand checks (which he was never going to use) in exchange for a +2 bonus to diplomacy and sense motive. A fighter with a huge amount of hit points would consider taking that -3 penalty to reflex saves flaw for a +2 bonus to will saves feat. His survivability--and thus overall raw power level--goes up. And when that gets extreme enough, like a mounted paladin being able to trade in his base land speed for a FEAT, it makes the game unfair.
Lago AM3P 03-16-04, 10:27 PM	In the idealistic, romantic world in my head, when turmoil invades, there's a little equation that usually happens: Love = Stupid Actions If you've got a DM who's not allowing anyone to rejoin once they've died, and has effectively nerfed spells that bring people back to life, role-playing love to it's full extent is effectively a wish to leave the game. A 5th level character powered by love would go up against epic-level villains if the note delivered was "come immeadiately or you'll wish we'd kill SO." (Again, world in my head.) Yes. That's the way all roleplaying flaws (retardedly) work. The roleplaying flaw spins out of control and damages the game, hurting the other members on your team, in the case that the DM decides that the people going after your loved ones are murderous balors and you are a 1st level character. Which, chances are, will take the game in a direction the other players don't want to explore and you and/or the DM should be hit over the head with the player's handbook for wrecking the incredibly cool D&D game. Or, the flaw will take you on some aggravating adventures where you have to endure angry troll guards while storming through the Dark Castle to rescue your love. Only you really, as a player, do not care for the plot hook and you're only doing this because you REALLY wanted to have the weapon focus and combat expertise feats 6 levels early. Which basically means that the DM is jerking you (and the party) around but you're putting up with it because you want more power. This also really bad. Hopefully, you'll get the third outcome, you'll have a blast playing the flaw anyway and totally doing the Ulysses thing. Which is pretty much what everyone wants. But since the game and your DM can already do that ANYWAY, it eludes me why you should get more power for it.
Lago AM3P 03-16-04, 10:35 PM	Or there's the fourth outcome, where you don't care about the flaw either way, like if you were taking a flaw like Nongourmet, which meant that your stomach can only handle bland foods and you can't hold down alcohol and the party had to prepare special meals for you. It's not something that's important to your character, but having it also won't make your character less like you envisioned. Which basically means more power for no reason. This may or may not be bad, depending on whether other people in the party have the same idea. Then it's just effectively starting at level 2 or 3 rather than 1. This actually the outcome I prefer the most. Unfortunately, there are just some roleplaying flaws that people will never want to take, as it would be an imposition on their character. Which means that an otherwise balanced party will end up on different ends of the power spectrum. Which is metagaming, and bad roleplaying.
Veton 03-16-04, 10:42 PM	I looked over the flaws section, and they seem fine to me. The only problem I have is with the ones that give you -3 to a certain kind of save. You can just get the feat that gives you a +3 bonus to that save if you need it for a Prestige Class. So someone who wants a Prestige Class with a requirement of Lighting Reflexes takes Poor Reflexes (or whatever that flaw is called), and uses the bonus one for Lighting Reflexes. No penalty is applied and they got it for free.
jagggar 03-16-04, 11:05 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P Yes. That's the way all roleplaying flaws (retardedly) work. You have just earned my undying respect. :rolleyes: Originally posted by Lago AM3P Or there's the fourth outcome, where you don't care about the flaw either way, like if you were taking a flaw like Nongourmet, which meant that your stomach can only handle bland foods and you can't hold down alcohol and the party had to prepare special meals for you. It's not something that's important to your character, but having it also won't make your character less like you envisioned. Which basically means more power for no reason. This may or may not be bad, depending on whether other people in the party have the same idea. Then it's just effectively starting at level 2 or 3 rather than 1. This actually the outcome I prefer the most. Unfortunately, there are just some roleplaying flaws that people will never want to take, as it would be an imposition on their character. Which means that an otherwise balanced party will end up on different ends of the power spectrum. Which is metagaming, and bad roleplaying. I'm sorry, but could you clarify that? It sounds like to me you're okay with in short, a "free feat" with no disadvantage to the character, when for the rest of this thread, it's seemed that what you're arguing is that that's what flaws basicly do, and you hate it. Oh, and should I prepare to defend traits? Basicly, they're low-powered feat-flaw combos. The Slow trait should be banned because the mounted paladin will take it and get extra hit points.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-16-04, 11:38 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P Hopefully, you'll get the third outcome, you'll have a blast playing the flaw anyway and totally doing the Ulysses thing. Which is pretty much what everyone wants. But since the game and your DM can already do that ANYWAY, it eludes me why you should get more power for it. The general point is to gain something for making a character with an innate weakness (something players generally don't want to do). While it might be cool to have a character who is an alcoholic for instance you generally wouldn't want to play such a character unless you got something for it. Since he may be in several battles drunk and at a disadvantage, as a player it'd be nice to get some kind of compensation for that, since you're voluntarily putting your PC at a disadvantage. The benefit shouldn't be good enough that everyone wants to play a drunk, but it should be good enough that a player considers it a viable choice. At its best flaws can be used as an incentive to build more interesting characters with personality flaws and/or restrictions. The UA system just sucks for that because none of the flaws represent any kind of personality flaws, and are presented simply as a min/maxing tool. This however doesn't necessarily mean that all flaw systems are bad. As I said before, the flaw systems in other games like the white wolf series, tend to work well for the most part, so I don't think the idea of flaws is necessarily bad, just the idea of flaws which don't actually hinder your character. The real problem too is that some of the flaws can be dealt with through magic or other means, treat the flaws as virtual feats that remain only as long as the flaw remains a penalty. If for instance you've got a flaw that gives you one leg and you use a regenerate spell to compensate, then the virtual feat you got from that flaw is now gone, because the flaw no longer exists. The same could be said for wildshaping and other polymorph forms. If you turn into an air elemental and are no longer plagued by your lack of a leg, then you also lose the feat for as long as you're in air elemental shape. Basically you only gain the bonus in power as long as you actually have the disadvantage, so it's very difficult to find a way to abuse it. As for roleplaying flaws ruining the game, I think that's up to the DM and players to reach a consensus as to what's good for the game. In general, roleplaying flaws shouldn't be things like "must protect NPC X" as those tend to be more plot hooks than flaws, a flaw should be something that requires the player to do something compulsively or a phobia of some kind. A compulsive gambler flaw for instance wouldn't necessarily screw over the party, though it could cause the PC that took it quite a wealth hit.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-16-04, 11:38 PM	Originally posted by Veton So someone who wants a Prestige Class with a requirement of Lighting Reflexes takes Poor Reflexes (or whatever that flaw is called), and uses the bonus one for Lighting Reflexes. No penalty is applied and they got it for free. That won't work, since Lightning Reflexes gives a +2 bonus. So you're effectivly giving yourself a -1 penalty to reflex saves, which is...Kinda pointless.
Tigald 03-17-04, 04:25 AM	Everyone can say what he wants, Lago AM3P speaks the truth and you know that. Flaws can be a good roleplaying opportunity, but they also can destroy your game. I think the Problem with Flaws are, that you are free to choose just ANY Feat written, no matter what it does. Flaws in other RP Systems are more limited. There are more like the traits presented in UA. You have a penalty here and get a Bonus there and these are somewhat restricted. Still here you can min/max such things easily and compensate the penalty by using magic or by other ways. Yesterday i thought that if I expand the list with the Flaws presented in the "new Flaws" thread and then let every player roll his flaw randomly, this would solve the problem. But now I'm not sure about that. If I decide to make it like this, i will ensure that every player roleplays his flaw, no matter how much it hurts. Although i will restrict the number to one Flaw, no more. Of Course I wouldn't force them to take one. So by now i don't know how to handel that. Tigald
77IM 03-17-04, 10:44 AM	I guess I better post before the tally of the words "stupid" and "retarded" reaches the thread-lock threshold. ;) In response to those who think flaws are too abusable: The secret to min/maxing is that advantages and drawbacks can't be priced individually, because character abilities are stronger or weaker in combinations. Hence, there are a lot of flaw/feat/class ability/ability score combinations that produce overall stronger characters (like the aforementioned wizard who takes physical flaws and then polymorphs them away). News Flash!: Players can min/max like this even without the use of feats, like the classic druid who takes poor physical abilities and then spends all his time in wild shape or the traditional fighter with a Charisma of 4 because it's useless to him -- how are these folks any different than the wizard with half movement speed? A good DM will already be watching for "unbalanced" characters like this, and correcting them through a variety of techniques (in-game and meta-game). With a vigilant DM, flaws change nothing about the basic premise of party balance, it's simply a matter of how much extra work the DM wants to take on and how important it is for people to customize every little detail of their characters. The reason I think the UA flaws are poor: Simple numeric penalties are boring, and most of the "flaws" listed are best represented through low ability scores. Most other games with prominent flaw systems encourage characters with above-average ability scores across the board; not so D&D in which abilities below 10 are staple. For example, if you want to play a "weak-willed" character, that sounds to me like a guy with a low Wisdom. If you want to be "physically inept," just ratchet your Str and Dex down a few notches. A frail character might have poor Con, a rude character might have a low Cha, an ill-tempered one might have a low Wis, etc. etc. etc. The only novelty here is that you can lower your numbers in return for a feat, instead of higher ability scores. So I think a much simpler and better system would be to allow people, at character creation, to trade out ability scores for feats -- maybe 4 ability score points for a single feat. Then, whatever personality traits or quirks the person wants can just be role-played, backed up by their ability scores and other character choices. -- 77IM
Soulmage 03-17-04, 02:02 PM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P I can tell you right now, if I was a wizard, I would take Pathetic and Slow. And then after casting overland flight and polymorph, I would laugh. Well, unfortunately if you actually read through my system you can only take one. Both of the "solutions" you present involve a 3rd level spell or higher. Those require you to loose a significant spell slot and/or a round of casting in combat. A far worse penalty than the flaw ever was. Flaws are not supposed to cripple a character for life - just a drawback in exchange for a single feat I don't see anything wrong with a wizard choosing to use spells to counter-act the effects of his flaw. He only got one feat by taking it, now he's using up spells to counter it. Not much of a game breaker there. Not to mention the fact that the spells you mention aren't even available to a wizard until at least 5th level. Even then they're his highest level spell slot. So its really something like 7th or 8th level before he can even realistically start to make this trade off (which isn't a very good deal for him anyway.) You're just not offering any convincing evidence as to why flaws are so horrible.
Wil_Hyral 03-17-04, 06:55 PM	Originally posted by Hengwrt Ellesmere :confused: Could you explain, or are you just being silly? Sorry for the ambiguity. I couldn't hardly consider flaws even close to as bad as the rise of Communism in early 20th century Russia. Talk about your worst ideas; this idea only disappoints a select group of a select sample of Westernized Gaming population. That's all.
Lago AM3P 03-17-04, 07:12 PM	News Flash!: Players can min/max like this even without the use of feats, like the classic druid who takes poor physical abilities and then spends all his time in wild shape or the traditional fighter with a Charisma of 4 because it's useless to him -- how are these folks any different than the wizard with half movement speed? A good DM will already be watching for "unbalanced" characters like this, and correcting them through a variety of techniques (in-game and meta-game). Right. So, the best thing to do is not to include flaws in the first place. Since they already definitionally make more one-sided characters and have been shown to be often almost-free or completely free rides--they're tools for abuse. If you want your character to have a flaw, THEN ROLEPLAY THE FLAW. You don't need a cynical mathematical construct to roleplay a lot of elements of your character! Expecting a friggin' POWERGAMING BENEFIT when operating with the premise of: Real roleplayers don't just care for power so they'll often do mathematically irrational things to enhance their character vision. Actually negates the whole premise, so claiming that using flaws as-written is in fact contradictory. If you want to have your character take penalties in the game, then roleplay them. There's no reason why your DM wouldn't let you, unless you're flaw is so deep as to ruin the fun for other members in the party. Flaws are not supposed to cripple a character for life - just a drawback in exchange for a single feat I don't see anything wrong with a wizard choosing to use spells to counter-act the effects of his flaw. He only got one feat by taking it, now he's using up spells to counter it. Not much of a game breaker there. Not to mention the fact that the spells you mention aren't even available to a wizard until at least 5th level. Even then they're his highest level spell slot. So its really something like 7th or 8th level before he can even realistically start to make this trade off (which isn't a very good deal for him anyway.) You're just not offering any convincing evidence as to why flaws are so horrible. Flaws are bad from when you start, and in the case of some, they're even worse at low level. Just for low level players, here are some completely and utterly bypassable flaws. Frail: If you are level 3 or below, you cannot lose with this flaw if you take friggin' toughness. In fact, if your game ends at level 1 or 2, you actually end up with more power than you started out with for no reason, no matter who you are. If your game lasts longer than this, then you can later take improved toughness and they cancel out. The profound unfairness of trading one hp at first level for a feat NOW (which you will later regain) is just silly. Slow: If you are a mounted combatant, then this feat is totally the win. Noncombatant, Shaky: Be a wizard, and then you attack with TARGETED SPELLS. In fact, most of the best low level spells don't even require you to make attack rolls. Inattentive: If you do not have spot as a class skill and your wisdom is profoundly unexciting (paladin, barbarian, fighter, wizard, sorcerer), then you don't even care. You would never make a spot check anyway except for at really low level and the more competent people were unlucky. Murky-Eyed: Be a wizard, and then you attack with targeted or area spells. Bleh.
Soulmage 03-18-04, 09:41 AM	Frail: If you are level 3 or below, you cannot lose with this flaw if you take friggin' toughness. In fact, if your game ends at level 1 or 2, you actually end up with more power than you started out with for no reason, no matter who you are. If your game lasts longer than this, then you can later take improved toughness and they cancel out. The profound unfairness of trading one hp at first level for a feat NOW (which you will later regain) is just silly. So? A character can use the feat they get from their flaw, to off-set the penalty the flaw gave them. How utterly pointless. I don't think there will be a whole lot of folks jumping on this option. Slow: If you are a mounted combatant, then this feat is totally the win. In 20+ years of gaming, I've never seen a primarily mounted combatant. If you have a lot of these in your campaign, I'd suggest you tweak the system (as I have done) not to allow this feat. Noncombatant, Shaky: Be a wizard, and then you attack with TARGETED SPELLS. In fact, most of the best low level spells don't even require you to make attack rolls. In my campaign a penalty for wizards attack rolls is huge. See my version of the noncombatant flaw. Again, you need to tweak the system for your own game as I have - if you'd ever bother to read my other post before responding with whatever happens to be lurking in your brain at the moment. Inattentive: If you do not have spot as a class skill and your wisdom is profoundly unexciting (paladin, barbarian, fighter, wizard, sorcerer), then you don't even care. You would never make a spot check anyway except for at really low level and the more competent people were unlucky. Murky-Eyed: Be a wizard, and then you attack with targeted or area spells. Bleh. Again, I don't use these. Try reading sometime before spouting off. You might like it.
Lago AM3P 03-18-04, 07:49 PM	Again, I don't use these. Try reading sometime before spouting off. You might like it. Did I ever once refer to 'the brokenness of Soulmage's house rules'? No. I'm talking about the optional rules published by a book which we take our message board on. The flaws I'm complaining about, and the idea in the general, are exactly as-presented in the Unearthed Arcana. NOT in your own game, where you have admitted to tossing out flaws you perceive as game-wrecking. Which is the straw man YOU brought up, not me. So ease off.
Joachim Murat 03-19-04, 03:20 PM	Anything PC's do DM NPC's can do in larger quantity. If a group finds an interesting way to abuse the game replicate it and send it right back at them.
Count Arioch the 28th 03-19-04, 03:27 PM	Yes, because it's always nice when the DM encourages ramapnt powergaming at the expense of character developement. :smirk: I just don't use flaws as presented in the UA book at all. If you want a flaw, you roleplay a flaw. If you want a reward for doing something that you should be doing anyway, then you're out of my game.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-19-04, 03:32 PM	I agree with everyone else you said... except this one. Originally posted by Lago AM3P Frail: If you are level 3 or below, you cannot lose with this flaw if you take friggin' toughness. In fact, if your game ends at level 1 or 2, you actually end up with more power than you started out with for no reason, no matter who you are. If your game lasts longer than this, then you can later take improved toughness and they cancel out. The profound unfairness of trading one hp at first level for a feat NOW (which you will later regain) is just silly. Not many campaigns end at level 1 or 2 and this is not the norm. I dont' see anything wrong with this flaw. It's certainly a heavy hit to a character, and certainly not worth a feat. It's basically a -2 to con, sometihng every character needs. Sure at 1st and 2nd level you can counteract it with tougness but by 3rd level it's equalled out and after that it's a downhill slope that'll really make you wish you hadn't taken it. And if you do run an anomalous campaign that just goes to level 2, like any other non-standard game you have to realize which rules are right for your campaign. These are optional rules after all, nobody is twisting your arm to use them.
Lago AM3P 03-19-04, 04:52 PM	Sure at 1st and 2nd level you can counteract it with tougness but by 3rd level it's equalled out and after that it's a downhill slope that'll really make you wish you hadn't taken it. And if you do run an anomalous campaign that just goes to level 2, like any other non-standard game you have to realize which rules are right for your campaign. These are optional rules after all, nobody is twisting your arm to use them. Well, yes. I brought that flaw up to show the ridiculousness of the entire system, even on flaws that people say hurt everyone. It was also just as a counterpoint to the 'well, it takes awhile to get to a point in the game where your character literally pays nothing for a bonus'. So, apparently, the perfect spectrum in which to use UA flaws are levels 5-8, as anything else and you get totally bypassable flaws, like frail and vulnerable for users of the karmic strike feat on the low end, and pathetic and inattentive at the high levels. And at almost every level, non-combatant, murky-eyed, and slow. WTF?
Kem 03-19-04, 05:13 PM	Originally posted by MysteryGilgamesh That won't work, since Lightning Reflexes gives a +2 bonus. So you're effectivly giving yourself a -1 penalty to reflex saves, which is...Kinda pointless. Actually it kinda works. You are basically getting the Lightning Reflexes feat for free in regards to your PrC in return for a -1 on reflex saves. Leaving you open to pick another feat.
MysteryGilgamesh 03-19-04, 09:19 PM	Originally posted by Kem Actually it kinda works. You are basically getting the Lightning Reflexes feat for free in regards to your PrC in return for a -1 on reflex saves. Leaving you open to pick another feat. But very few PrC's require lightning reflexes. Indeed, almost nothing requires it. So, you're essentially giving yourself a -1 to reflex saves for nothing. Sure, it might help with the one or two PrC's out there that need LR, but...Is it really worth it?
Kem 03-20-04, 06:29 AM	Originally posted by MysteryGilgamesh But very few PrC's require lightning reflexes. Indeed, almost nothing requires it. So, you're essentially giving yourself a -1 to reflex saves for nothing. Sure, it might help with the one or two PrC's out there that need LR, but...Is it really worth it? Eh, not saying its feasable in this case, just that it does work that way and could be feasable in some case :)
Erik_Steel 03-21-04, 11:59 AM	For some reason before I read about things no player would ever do I started thinking about doing them. Taking slow for a monk, that'd be a fun one, but I don't want to do that because even with the penalty you would stil have a level 20 land speed of 45. Maybe the inept monk, but the problem is you get wisdom saves as your good save and the still mind class feature. Short-fuse[or whatever the flaw is called] that would be alot of fun, especially since I just read a book where one of the main protagonists was a monk and he seemed to have this flaw. Oh I would have fun making a pacifist fighter. Flaws can be alot of fun if roleplayed right. If the players have fun with it, what's the big deal, if you don't like it don't use it. [It is a variant rule after all] There will be abuse in any rule system, that's what happens. WotC shouldn't have to make everything illeagal in gameplay just because someone can abuse the rules, that'd be down right redundant. Oh and taking the frail flaw then taking toughness is also redundant, because the player might as well of not taken the feat or the flaw and save themselves the trouble.
Erik_Steel 03-21-04, 12:01 PM	Just thought of another good one, the slow learner Wizard. Redundant Barbarian, shortfuse barbarian. the frail fighter. These might be some fun.
WizO_Pony 03-21-04, 12:41 PM	Originally posted by 77IM I guess I better post before the tally of the words "stupid" and "retarded" reaches the thread-lock threshold. ;) How about EVERYONE here just easing off the use of inflammatory language...? There are good points being made on all sides, but this thread is a lot more hostile than it needs to be. Let's keep it civil and not turn it into a flame war. Pretty Please with apples and sugar cubes on top...?
DarkThoughts24 03-21-04, 09:20 PM	flaws are fun because the pc never THINKS they are going to have it exploited, but they will, especially if you are creative
duncan_idaho 03-22-04, 12:09 AM	You know there are certain controls you can build into this--I mean, simply don't allow the "weak-willed" character to take iron will, or permit the guy with the sluggish reflexes... I would tend to prefer role-playing flaws (and more of them...13 isn't a lot--and it invites in house redundancies.) But even just working with what we've got, ask the player why he's "weak-willed." Maybe his character was the victim of some repeated trauma that left him anxious & shaky--that's something you can use to advance story arcs and develop characters. And there's no reason why a player couldn't call his flaw "battered psyche" instead of weak-willed. Means the same thing... Also, a lot depends on what your characters are doing with those feats...d20 is rather too stingy with most classes when it comes to feat access...I mean, it should be possible to build a character with good combat skills & still have some room for character development type feats...And you're only allowed two flaws & traits total anyway, right? or is it two each? Anyway, my 2 bits.
Jc3 03-23-04, 10:45 AM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P Everyone knows that flaws already pretty much suck.I hear a lot of "this is broken and does not work" talk but not a lot of "here's a useful and constructive alternative" talk. You have stated your opinion that you do not like the UA rules for flaws. Noted. No one will ever again argue whether or not you like these rules. So, rather than continuing your illuminating rant about why, where, and how bad these rules are, how about coming up with some alternatives? It's generally considered in poor taste to point out a problem without having an alternative in mind, unless of course you don't have an alternative in mind, at which point you must humbly state, "I don't know how to fix this, but it is my opinion it's broken." So, what's the solution, big man? Mine is not to use the rules for flaws. If I were, however, I would probably set up specific plot encounters and roleplaying situations that played on the flaws. That way, the hero who thought he was getting a free ride discovers that nothing in life is free, after all. And yes, I read to the end of the second page of the thread.
Erik_Steel 03-23-04, 08:38 PM	Most of my nonD&D rpg experience has been with my brother who notoriously exploited flaws to there fullest. If you took can't cross running water as a flaw, he made sure this would get in the way of things. So if someone takes a flaw, they are asking you to exploit it. If PCs don't agree with this tell them not to take a flaw it's that simple. So kill mounts, use anti-magic fields, compulsion effects, use all of this because the player asked for it.
Lago AM3P 03-26-04, 05:02 AM	I hear a lot of "this is broken and does not work" talk but not a lot of "here's a useful and constructive alternative" talk. You have stated your opinion that you do not like the UA rules for flaws. Noted. No one will ever again argue whether or not you like these rules. So, rather than continuing your illuminating rant about why, where, and how bad these rules are, how about coming up with some alternatives? It's generally considered in poor taste to point out a problem without having an alternative in mind, unless of course you don't have an alternative in mind, at which point you must humbly state, "I don't know how to fix this, but it is my opinion it's broken." My solution is to take flaws out of the game entirely. Expecting a mechanical benefit for roleplaying your character is sort of... well... powergaming. And there are already ways to powergame your character at the cost of having to roleplay them differently in this game, like choosing a cleric with awesome domains or taking your barbarian levels BEFORE your ranger levels for more hit points. It seems to me that allowing powergamers to trade one aspect of their character that doesn't result in direct numerical power for something that DOES (like... flaws) is almost always a poor idea. So the big question is: why does my suggestion have to be a way to fix something I think is unworkable?
stone_dog 03-26-04, 05:31 AM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P Expecting a mechanical benefit for roleplaying your character is sort of... well... powergaming. Not really, but it is new for D&D. GURPS, HERO, Storyteller, original AEG games all have flaws of some kind and they all operate under the same guidlines. "If it isn't an actual hinderance to the character you do not get the points for it." If a flaw isn't coming up enough in play to get in the way then take the feat they purchased it with away, but leave the flaw. Don't spring that rule on players though. They hate surprises like that.
Surcus 03-26-04, 06:38 AM	I like the flaw system. I introduced it retroactively in my epic campaign, which has been running from the days of Combat Option books of the late 2e days, and where Skills and Powers was central. Still, flaws like the one giving -1 to AC is too good, so I changed that one to -2 in my campaign. The "Shaky" flaw is extremely popular, though, so I am a bit worried that people will abuse it. Ah, well, just another DM challenge:) To get Bonus Epic feats for flaws, I introduced the idea that the flaws would be twice as costly to do so. So Shaky would get -4, for example. I still see that few of my players take many flaws. They are wary of having penalties in the range of 3 or 4 on attacks/saves, even when they now possess closer to +30 in base attack and lots of spells to improve themselves, especially for one encounter.
stone_dog 03-26-04, 06:50 AM	Originally posted by Surcus Still, flaws like the one giving -1 to AC is too good, so I changed that one to -2 in my campaign. The "Shaky" flaw is extremely popular, though, so I am a bit worried that people will abuse it. Ah, well, just another DM challenge:) -1 AC isn't all that bad since it is a blanket AC penalty. Most AC granting feats are conditional, but a -2 would certainly not be too much and would make the PC nervous for a while. I'd just gleefully point out the flaw whenever the bad thing misses by one or two. "Boy, you still aren't good at this are you?" Shaky does seem to be one of those that makes things twitchy. Now if a Ranger with ranged combat style took it, or a rogue that REALLY wanted to be a knife thrower then that would be fine. Noncombatant is another one. If you are pacifist cleric then you really shouldn't be trying to hit things except in dire circumstances. Then, since that -2 is really working against you on both numbers and drama, the feat would be fine. I really should go to sleep.
NorthSaber 03-26-04, 07:26 AM	I think it's commendable that DnD is giving an attempt at a "disadvantage" system familiar from games such as Gurps, but I do agree with the majority of posters here in that A) power-gaming opportunities are great and B) numerical bonuses and penalties do not necessarily lead to good roleplaying. What I would suggest is keep the idea of flaws, but restrict the benefits. For example, one of the most flavorful and least crunchy feats is Skill Focus (or the +3 Skill Emphasis of some splat books), but since it doesn't help with PrC requirements, no-one takes it. Well what if the only feat you could take to balance out a flaw was Skill Focus? The benefit would be small enough that people wouldn't take flaws unless they liked the idea from a roleplaying perspective, and if they did, the benefit (Skill Focus) could be chosen to enhance the roleplaying aspect even more. Another option is to simply give extra skill points for each flaw taken; perhaps increase the x4 multiplier (for first level) by one for each flaw taken. As this would benefit classes with high skill points, you could alternately just give 4 extra skill points - better than Skill Focus for giving the character versatile skills, but wouldn't allow emphasis on a single skill (which would probably be Concentration, Spellcraft, or other such crunchy skill). Perhaps even more interesting would be to give a +1 skill point per level for each flaw taken, just like an additional +1 Int bonus (except only for skill points). This way the benefit would continue to generate skill points, effectively giving the character one extra skill per feat she can have at max ranks. For non-rogue characters, it always seemed to me that characters never had enough skill points. Obvious skills like Swim, Climb and Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (history) are practically never taken except as PrC prerequisites. Maybe this would balance it out. (But if you only got skill points for taking flaws, would you do it?)
TexasFriedCriminal 03-26-04, 10:32 AM	Flaws are a bad idea in any class based system, since each of the classes allready is at it's heart nothing more than a collection of flaws and advantages. Being a bad meele fighter is a flaw of the wizard class, it's as easy as that.
FriendoftheDork 03-26-04, 11:22 AM	Although I like flaws and merits in storyteller, I agree that these particular flaws are not well balanced enough. The idea of using flaws in d20 however is not neccecarily a bad idea - it just needs some more work. I've made a character using these flaws and I must admit that i min/maxed pretty much when i chose the one that gives me -2 to melee attacks. Inattentive however fit my character (wizard) very well. Having a total of -5 on spot and listen is really a flaw to any character, but not so much as to make my character unplayable.
Lago AM3P 03-26-04, 07:42 PM	Not really, but it is new for D&D. GURPS, HERO, Storyteller, original AEG games all have flaws of some kind and they all operate under the same guidlines. "If it isn't an actual hinderance to the character you do not get the points for it." Okay, this is moving from complex cheese (wizards taking murky-eyed) to simpler cheese. A druid who takes an additional -3 penalty to reflex saves is definitely at a disadvantage, no matter how you slice it. However, are you really comfortable with them taking this penalty to pick up feats like celestial wildshape? That's how flaws don't work. Either you're allowing flaws on one end that will benefit those who know how to shift numbers around or you make them all suck to the point where the people who take them either don't know or don't care how to shift numbers around. Either way, flaws inherently increase the power gap between the party members. This happens all the time, especially when you buy supplements, but I at least want a REASON for it that's superior to our current system of 'everyone takes flaws and whatever'.
NorthSaber 03-26-04, 09:07 PM	Another idea I had for an alternate benefit to balance out flaws is to give the characters a magic item or two. In the Middle-Earth Role Playing game, characters had background points they could use to increase stats, get unique innate benefits (like feats), get more starting cash, or to get magical items that a beginning character otherwise couldn't have afforded. The idea was that the magic item was a family heirloom or something like that. So what if each flaw the character took allowed him to have 1,000gp worth of magic items? A very attractive benefit for a first level character, but on the long run the flaw will be worse. The magic item should be chosen by the DM to avoid further power-gaming, or rolled randomly on the tables (in this case the item could be worth more). I also have a comment concerning the abuse of feats people have been mentioning: I think any feat is quite severe, even if it doesn't seem so at first. A wizard who takes a -2 to melee attacks may not suffer from it to begin with, but the flaw also has an "opportunity cost": the character will not be able to efficiently multi-class into a melee class later, such as Spellsword or Eldritch Knight. (Of course, for most min/maxers this makes no difference as they know that the most powerful wizard is a pure caster.) Similar disadvantages can be found in Gurps: being a Eunuch doesn't really have any impact on the character on a numeric level, but were the character to become a king, he could not sire an heir for himself. I'm not sure if this is really a good example, but you see that for any flaw, disadvantage or weakness, there are several unforeseen consequences, and the DM should make sure to make them count if the player thought he was getting a freebie.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-27-04, 03:43 AM	Originally posted by NorthSaber Similar disadvantages can be found in Gurps: being a Eunuch doesn't really have any impact on the character on a numeric level, but were the character to become a king, he could not sire an heir for himself. I'm not sure if this is really a good example, but you see that for any flaw, disadvantage or weakness, there are several unforeseen consequences, and the DM should make sure to make them count if the player thought he was getting a freebie. Well, the problem with the disadvantages from UA, is that they aren't character disadvantages, they're purely mechanical. A penalty to attack for instance doesn't come into play unless the character himself chooses to attack. Thus it isn't the DM who can ever make that flaw count for something, only the player. The flaw only limits the player's tactics... only since it's a tactic the PC isn't good at anyway, and didn't spend any points on, the PC really doesn't care, and there isn't anything the DM can do to make him care. A wizard with a -2 to melee attack rolls simply does not care about that penalty unless he was planning on using touch spells or becoming a fighter/mage type. Of course you wouldn't take the flaw in the first place if you wanted to do either of those things... so the disadvantage is purely illusory, and that's the problem with mechanical penalties. In fact you're better off with nonmechanical penalties like making the character a eunuch. At least you can then have all the NPCs make fun of him and find other ways to make him regret taking the flaw. As a DM there isn't much you can work with when the wizard has an additional -2 to melee attacks stacked on top of his normally abysmal BaB. It's not like you can force him to make melee attacks and the character isn't going to take any hindrance in character for taking the flaw.
NorthSaber 03-27-04, 04:07 AM	Another problem here is that players are more or less "omniscient" about the game world. What if a player took the -2 melee flaw for his wizard and happily played for six or seven levels, and then he found out that in his DM's homebrew world there is an insanely powerful prestige organization/class for wizard/fighters (like full bab, full spellcasting and no ASF), but the flaw made him wait for four extra levels before qualifying... What I'm saying is that since the players pretty much know all the feats and prestige classes and spells that give them the edge, they can also plan ahead and see which flaws will be of least consequence. The player in the above example would probably be very upset and accuse the DM of doing this just to spite him. And maybe the DM did - I'm personally getting a bit annoyed at the way DnD characters can be "plotted" all the way to level 20, including things from feat and prestige class selection to details like spells and magic items. So: if you throw a curve-ball to the player who has plotted out his character, he might not appreciate it as his plans may be ruined. If you don't, you're basically giving him the message that he does know everything worth knowing about the game world, even if the character doesn't. ...and how does this relate to flaws? :D Pretty much all of the disadvantages of Gurps have their mechanical ramifications as well. For example Eunuch gives -1 to reaction rolls if known, which might affect things like promotions, elections, or even shopping for goods on the market. However, Gurps is designed in a way that min/maxing or powergaming is practically nonexistent. I don't really know why, but the game environment doesn't support powergaming like DnD does. In DnD you almost feel stupid if you don't min/max your character, especially since we all know min/maxing does not mean you also can't be a good roleplayer. Meanwhile, if flaws have no mechanical ramifications, everyone will take them. If flaws had no benefits, almost no-one would take them, which would end up in less developed characters personality-wise. I wish I had the answers. I think DnD is better than Gurps in portraying cinematic, fast-paced adventure gaming, but traits and flaws are what help define a character's personality. I'd like to have both.
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-27-04, 03:08 PM	Originally posted by NorthSaber Another problem here is that players are more or less "omniscient" about the game world. What if a player took the -2 melee flaw for his wizard and happily played for six or seven levels, and then he found out that in his DM's homebrew world there is an insanely powerful prestige organization/class for wizard/fighters (like full bab, full spellcasting and no ASF), but the flaw made him wait for four extra levels before qualifying... Well for one, I wouldn't think making an insanely powerful PrC is good DMing anyway, and second he probably wouldn't want it if he wasn't a combat mage anyway. Third, a penalty wouldn't prevent you from qualifying for anything. Your BaB isn't reduced by 2 you just have a -2 to attacks. What I'm saying is that since the players pretty much know all the feats and prestige classes and spells that give them the edge, they can also plan ahead and see which flaws will be of least consequence. Well this is more an issue of character design than anything else. I don't really have to plot a wizard from 1-20 specifically to decide he's not going to use touch spells. I can decide that from the beginning. Maybe I do miss out on something like imprisonment, but basically it's a no brainer. The player in the above example would probably be very upset and accuse the DM of doing this just to spite him. And maybe the DM did - I'm personally getting a bit annoyed at the way DnD characters can be "plotted" all the way to level 20, including things from feat and prestige class selection to details like spells and magic items. I doubt the PC would think that. If I was a PC I'd personally think... wow, why'd the DM make such an overpowered PrC? The best counter for character "plotting", at least as far as PrCs go, is to require training. If you want to become a bladesinger for instance, you've got to get one to train you, you don't just say "ok I meet the prereqs I'll pick up the bladesinger class". If the bladesingers don't like you, they won't accept you, and they'll probably give you a special quest to prove your worth. That way, you may end up in the middle of something before you can pick up the PrC you want and thus get it a little later than expected. Switching to test based prereqs from UA would probably make the level fo attaining a PrC even more unpredictable. So: if you throw a curve-ball to the player who has plotted out his character, he might not appreciate it as his plans may be ruined. If you don't, you're basically giving him the message that he does know everything worth knowing about the game world, even if the character doesn't. It's fine to throw him curve balls, so long as your curve ball is somewhat balanced. If you create a totally off the wall PrC without any player knowing what you need to join... that's bad form, because now you've required players who want powerful characters to be omniscient. He had to predict ahead of time he'd need cleave, improved bull rush and the ability to cast 3rd level arcane spells to take this unbalanced PrC. One reason I do like the test based Prereqs is they get away from some of the bad parts of PrCs... namely that you have to make them using some kind of build usually, especially with regard to feats. A PrC that requires something like improved bull rush, or toughness... we know no PC is going to take that normally. And to make it a prereq is almost unfair, because it requires PCs to have omniscient knowledge. It's one reason I think PCs tend to expect omnisicience is because for many things they need it. You'd never know the dwarven defender required toughness for instance, unless you read it in the book, and if your character came up to them wthout knowledge, it'd only be pure blind luck (and lack of powergaming) that he'd ever be able to qualify. However, Gurps is designed in a way that min/maxing or powergaming is practically nonexistent. I don't really know why, but the game environment doesn't support powergaming like DnD does. I dunno about that, I've seen a few GURPS munchkins. It's really how the campaign goes. If you play a mix of politics and combat, then it's tough to really powergame (vampire: the masquerade does a good job of this). Really, the problem too is the D&D skill system. GURPS, Vampire and pretty much every other game out there besides D&D uses a skill system that grants diminishing returns the more you put into it. D&D's skill system is linear. And this actually encourages powergaming by a great deal. My character in vampire has 3 dots in stealth... The 1st dot was only 2 XP, the 2nd was 4, the 3rd was 6, now the 4th is 8. That definitely makes me think twice about increasing it, and encourages me to bring up something that I'm not so good at. In D&D, there's no such bound. I have 23 ranks in hide, I gain a rouge level... at that high of a level, adding 2 ranks to my knowledge(local) skill won't help me, so I don't bother and instead put the ranks into hide. Because all skills at all levels are of equal cost, it encourages a few big skills and the rest small, where as a system like vampire or gurps encourages a much broader skill base. D&D actually punishes you by taking lots of different skills, because they become rapidly useless higher in levels. Every level you don't max your hide skill only means it's becoming more and more obsolete against monster's increased spot skills. I wish I had the answers. I think DnD is better than Gurps in portraying cinematic, fast-paced adventure gaming, but traits and flaws are what help define a character's personality. I'd like to have both. I agree, I wish there was a balanced system to integrate flaws. I think the flaws have to lean less toward mechanical aspects and more toward personality flaws.
Dragonspirit 10-18-04, 05:47 AM	Looks like I'm in the minority here, but I think the flaw system is pretty clever, with one caveat - the flaw taken should reasonably affect the character in "normal" status. By that I mean, I have no problem with a character taking slow and then using mounted combat. That is, frankly, what one WOULD do. If you have a weakness, and you are in paramilitary situations, you reduce your tactical disadvantages and adapt. So any flaw that hits AC, or saves, movement, initiative... any of the "universal" things is completely fair. I would have a problem with a caster taking a flaw that reduced their melee combat damage or something like that which is much more limited in scope. I believe that is the deciding factor in balance - that the flaw is something more generalized. Also remember it's only a feat, and one that HAS to be taken at first level so it's more restricted. No one is getting Vorpal Swords out of this deal. :) Finally, about this whole "players shouldn't get mechanical advantages"... that's just a weak argument IMO. Do you begrudge the wizard his high intelligence score (and thus DC and extra spells)? Or the fighter his strength? Every character is, to an extent, "min/maxed" mechanically. The real test is, afterwards, can the player make that character distinct and consistent within it's concept. Will his Paladin put his honor before his wallet and bury his comrade with his valuables? Will her cowardly thief crumble and give away party secrets that would have proved disadvantageous? Will the good cleric take that attack of opportunity on the fleeing bad guy? Most importantly, can they let in game negative things happen despite their out of game knowledge. Those are the things that count for good roleplaying to me.
Kiri Sittori 10-18-04, 10:16 AM	Yes. That's the way all roleplaying flaws (retardedly) work. The roleplaying flaw spins out of control and damages the game, hurting the other members on your team, in the case that the DM decides that the people going after your loved ones are murderous balors and you are a 1st level character. Which, chances are, will take the game in a direction the other players don't want to explore and you and/or the DM should be hit over the head with the player's handbook for wrecking the incredibly cool D&D game. Or, the flaw will take you on some aggravating adventures where you have to endure angry troll guards while storming through the Dark Castle to rescue your love. Only you really, as a player, do not care for the plot hook and you're only doing this because you REALLY wanted to have the weapon focus and combat expertise feats 6 levels early. Which basically means that the DM is jerking you (and the party) around but you're putting up with it because you want more power. This also really bad. Hopefully, you'll get the third outcome, you'll have a blast playing the flaw anyway and totally doing the Ulysses thing. Which is pretty much what everyone wants. But since the game and your DM can already do that ANYWAY, it eludes me why you should get more power for it. I've suffered the first case, and there were no Roleplaying Flaws or corollary benefits in sight. I had a first-level Paladin with a well-conceived "love triangle" background, which (as I discussed with the DM) entailed an SO and a rival of similar calibre. The DM decided that the rival was a 13th level Evil Enchanter, and that the party would only be introduced to the SO AFTER she was animated as a zombie. x.x