Hard of hearing flaw? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Hard of hearing flaw? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Omya
04-11-06, 05:01 AM I want to make a hard of hearing flaw, would -8 to all listen checks be a well balanced flaw?
Valoy_Muniz
04-11-06, 02:44 PM I want to make a hard of hearing flaw, would -8 to all listen checks be a well balanced flaw?

I would not alow it. This may make the game very hard to play and I think unfun. Just think he would have to roll just to hear his friends talk to him with in 5 feet (dc0 for normal speach).
Vestigial_Thumb
04-11-06, 03:53 PM I'd say -4. It's a bigger penalty than the bonus Skill Focus provides and I'd think it's enough to justify a feat.
steventirey1985
04-11-06, 06:19 PM I'd say -4. It's a bigger penalty than the bonus Skill Focus provides and I'd think it's enough to justify a feat.

The closest flaw in UA to the OPs new flaw gives a -4 penalty to both listen and spot, so only a -4 penalty to listen is not enough.
Omya
04-12-06, 11:34 AM Then what would make a balanced hearing based flaw?
Valoy_Muniz
04-12-06, 01:07 PM Perminat non-cureable Deafness.
Another Gnome
04-12-06, 02:48 PM Complete deafness also means -4 to Initiative and 20% chance of spell failure for all verbal spells. That's just overkill. Besides, anything called permanent and non-curable only tempts to try and wiggle away with it.

I'd say -10 to Listen checks. Hard enough to hurt, but not something you couldn't live with.
Bob Loblaw
04-12-06, 06:11 PM I'd say -6 to Listen. -4 isn't enough and -8 is too much.
Omya
04-12-06, 06:33 PM I'd say -6 to Listen. -4 isn't enough and -8 is too much.
That sounds pretty good to me, thanks. :)
Some_call_me_Tim
04-12-06, 07:18 PM Then what would make a balanced hearing based flaw?It's really hard to balance it when you limit it to one dimension such as just listen checks. The problem with a single weakness is that their are many other ways of overcoming it. Often when a listen check would be useful so would a spot check. That is what makes 'inattentive' a more balanced flaw.

Permanent deafness might be OK, but it has both plusses and minuses. 20% spell failure chance isn't even a factor for non-casters (a caster who took this as a flaw probably deserves the penalty). -4 to initative isn't as harsh as the -6 for 'unreactive.' However, being permanently deaf means you may not be affected by language-dependent spells or other mind-affecting sonic attacks, which could be a boon which flaws shouldn't grant.

You could always use the rule "Characters who remain deafened for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them" to lessen the penalty later in the campaign if it proved too unbalanced.

As for the other ideas posted I would say that if you compare to 'inattentive' (-4 to spot and listen checks) then you should at least have a penalty of -8, anything less is not severe enough. You could also just apply the part of the deafness rule that you always fail listen checks.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Omya 04-11-06, 05:01 AM	I want to make a hard of hearing flaw, would -8 to all listen checks be a well balanced flaw?
Valoy_Muniz 04-11-06, 02:44 PM	I want to make a hard of hearing flaw, would -8 to all listen checks be a well balanced flaw? I would not alow it. This may make the game very hard to play and I think unfun. Just think he would have to roll just to hear his friends talk to him with in 5 feet (dc0 for normal speach).
Vestigial_Thumb 04-11-06, 03:53 PM	I'd say -4. It's a bigger penalty than the bonus Skill Focus provides and I'd think it's enough to justify a feat.
steventirey1985 04-11-06, 06:19 PM	I'd say -4. It's a bigger penalty than the bonus Skill Focus provides and I'd think it's enough to justify a feat. The closest flaw in UA to the OPs new flaw gives a -4 penalty to both listen and spot, so only a -4 penalty to listen is not enough.
Omya 04-12-06, 11:34 AM	Then what would make a balanced hearing based flaw?
Valoy_Muniz 04-12-06, 01:07 PM	Perminat non-cureable Deafness.
Another Gnome 04-12-06, 02:48 PM	Complete deafness also means -4 to Initiative and 20% chance of spell failure for all verbal spells. That's just overkill. Besides, anything called permanent and non-curable only tempts to try and wiggle away with it. I'd say -10 to Listen checks. Hard enough to hurt, but not something you couldn't live with.
Bob Loblaw 04-12-06, 06:11 PM	I'd say -6 to Listen. -4 isn't enough and -8 is too much.
Omya 04-12-06, 06:33 PM	I'd say -6 to Listen. -4 isn't enough and -8 is too much. That sounds pretty good to me, thanks. :)
Some_call_me_Tim 04-12-06, 07:18 PM	Then what would make a balanced hearing based flaw?It's really hard to balance it when you limit it to one dimension such as just listen checks. The problem with a single weakness is that their are many other ways of overcoming it. Often when a listen check would be useful so would a spot check. That is what makes 'inattentive' a more balanced flaw. Permanent deafness might be OK, but it has both plusses and minuses. 20% spell failure chance isn't even a factor for non-casters (a caster who took this as a flaw probably deserves the penalty). -4 to initative isn't as harsh as the -6 for 'unreactive.' However, being permanently deaf means you may not be affected by language-dependent spells or other mind-affecting sonic attacks, which could be a boon which flaws shouldn't grant. You could always use the rule "Characters who remain deafened for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them" to lessen the penalty later in the campaign if it proved too unbalanced. As for the other ideas posted I would say that if you compare to 'inattentive' (-4 to spot and listen checks) then you should at least have a penalty of -8, anything less is not severe enough. You could also just apply the part of the deafness rule that you always fail listen checks.