Player wants to create his own Flaw [Archive] - Wizards Community

Player wants to create his own Flaw [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
celloshane
03-13-04, 02:05 PM I have allowed the players in my group to use the Flaws option. One player was unsatisfied with the flaws listed, but read the section on creating your own flaw. He came up with this
Stubborn
This character takes a -2 penalty to Diplomacy and a -1 penalty on all other Charisma checks.

I should mention the player plays a Dwarven Cleric. I feel the flaw allows him to expand his roleplaying, but I'm not sure it's as detrimental as a Flaw needs to be. I'd like opinions on whether the flaw is balanced, and if not, what you would change it to.
MeepoTheMighty
03-13-04, 02:08 PM I'd allow it, as long as you make sure that the -1 penalty applies to turning undead.
celloshane
03-13-04, 02:18 PM I would definately require the -1 to apply to Turning checks.

What if I required the -1 to apply to Intelligence checks as well? Stubborness can cloud your judgement and make you unwilling to accept new ideas. Or would this be too harsh?
Archtyrant Terevoth
03-13-04, 04:15 PM That's a very weak flaw and he's stealing the bonus feat if you allow him to take that. Unless your game makes huge use of social skills, this flaw isn't much of a disadvantage at all.

And it doesn't really make sense either... He's stubborn so he has a penalty to intimidating and bluffing people? Eh? That doesn't sound right.

I don't really think stubborness can be accurately reflected in a flaw. There really isn't any logical game consequence of being stubborn.

If anything you could make it a trait, where it grants a +1 bonus to saves agaisnt compulsion spells and a -1 penalty to saves against illusions.
trapspringer
03-13-04, 06:55 PM This flaw is acceptable. It is simply 'pathetic' but with a greater penalty on diplomacy. Were it that he took pathetic: charisma, he would only be stuck with a -1 penalty on all charisma checks
Veton
03-13-04, 07:09 PM Originally posted by celloshane
I would definately require the -1 to apply to Turning checks.

Why? The reason he takes the hit to Charisma checkes is because he's so stubborn that people don't really like him as much. That has nothing to do with Turning.

What if I required the -1 to apply to Intelligence checks as well? Stubborness can cloud your judgement and make you unwilling to accept new ideas. Or would this be too harsh?

So if he's stubborn, then he won't notice the switch to turn off the trap? (If he was a Rogue, of course, but this is just an example).

I think you will need to define what skills he takes the Charisma hit on. Intimidate wouldn't, but Handle Animal will.
Xeviat-DM
03-13-04, 07:28 PM Trapspringer has an interesting point. Just have the character take a -2 penalty to charisma, otherwise he's basically getting something for nothing. The book even warns against flaws that penalize social skills.
Lago AM3P
03-13-04, 08:24 PM When did this become a problem?

We already allow flaws in the game that DON'T HURT THE CHARACTER AT ALL, like low-wisdom fighters taking more penalties to spotting and listening, mounted paladins taking penalties to their land speed, and wizards taking penalties to attack rolls when they attack with targeted spells!

If you're okay with all of the above, then there's no reason not to let this feat in. At least this will actually be noticable.
Lago AM3P
03-13-04, 08:28 PM In fact, I can't think of a single flaw in that damn book that isn't either completely bypassable to certain characters or penalizes something they already suck at (like the shaky feat to monks) or represents a trade that a character would completely laugh at (the frail feat to druids, the vulnerable feat to clerics, the unreactive feat to, uh, clerics again.)
MattMart
03-22-04, 07:13 PM it allways hurts to be worse at spot or listen...
especially when you are the only one who doesnt get to act during the surprise round....
Soulmage
03-23-04, 09:17 AM Originally posted by Lago AM3P
In fact, I can't think of a single flaw in that damn book that isn't either completely bypassable to certain characters or penalizes something they already suck at (like the shaky feat to monks) or represents a trade that a character would completely laugh at (the frail feat to druids, the vulnerable feat to clerics, the unreactive feat to, uh, clerics again.)

You seem to be on an anti-flaw crusade.

On the other thread, I pointed out the system I was using and how you could create a balanced workable system, but instead you refused to consider the modified system, and just continued to rant about how flaws as a concept were broken and the whole thing ought to just be pitched.

Now here you are again doing basically the same thing.

Why does whether or not other people use flaws mean so much to you? Its obvious that it does from your tireless efforts to get the whole community to turn away from them.

As far as this flaw goes, I'd agree with the other poster. Just have the dwarf player take the -2 to Charisma.

That hurts him on turn undead, and divine feats, which is much more significant than the impact to social skills.
Millennium
03-24-04, 06:22 AM This doesn't smell right. If the -1 penalty applied to turning undead then it might be useful, but it doesn't make sense for stubbornness to impede the turning of undead. If anything, I would think it should enhance turning undead.

Your player almost certainly knows this, and will try to argue it. This flaw is a trap.
MattMart
03-24-04, 08:42 AM Maybe you should turn stubborness into a trait...-2 to all charisma related skill checks, +2 to will saves to resist charm and compulsion effects....

if he doesnt agree than he doesnt want stubborness to build on a character concept, he's just looking for a cheap feat and I would tell him tough patoots...
(Psi)SeveredHead
03-25-04, 10:12 PM Originally posted by MattMart
Maybe you should turn stubborness into a trait...-2 to all charisma related skill checks, +2 to will saves to resist charm and compulsion effects....

if he doesnt agree than he doesnt want stubborness to build on a character concept, he's just looking for a cheap feat and I would tell him tough patoots...

I'm not seeing -2 to all Charisma-related skill checks as a significant penalty. If he's not the party's face, he will rarely need to make these checks (the saving throw bonus will come up more often).

The feat is giving a combat bonus, so there should be a combat penalty. RP should balance RP, and combat balance combat, with no crossovers.
Lago AM3P
03-26-04, 04:53 AM Now here you are again doing basically the same thing.

Why does whether or not other people use flaws mean so much to you? Its obvious that it does from your tireless efforts to get the whole community to turn away from them.

Check the date of my post on this thread, and then on the separate thread I started. There was no way I could have read your suggestions before I posted it.

So... back off.
MattMart
03-26-04, 08:51 AM Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead
I'm not seeing -2 to all Charisma-related skill checks as a significant penalty. If he's not the party's face, he will rarely need to make these checks (the saving throw bonus will come up more often).

The feat is giving a combat bonus, so there should be a combat penalty. RP should balance RP, and combat balance combat, with no crossovers.

okay....

-2 to diplomacy checks, -1 to all other Charisma related checks
+3 to Sense motive checks

or maybe you can make stubborn a flaw of a different nature:

*Cannot retry any failed skill check.

if you fail climbing the wall the first time than you'll be damned if your gunna make a fool out of yourself and try it again.

that might be worth a feat
celloshane
03-28-04, 03:51 PM MattMart thanks for getting me thinking again.
Just so everyone knows I did not allow the original flaw stated.

However, I now feel like I've cheated my player out of a flaw since none of the UA flaws fit his character. I was discussing MattMart's post with a friend, and we came up with essentially the exact opposite.

Stubborn
If a player fails a skill check that can be retried, he must reattempt the check immediately. The retry is attempted at a (cumulative) -2 penalty. If the player fails five attempts consecutively, he may choose to stop. If the player stops and rests, then attempts the same check again, he starts at a -2 penalty. A player in immediate life-threatening danger from a source other than the skill check, may cease immediately. A player in life-threatening danger from the skill check (such as disarming a trap) may attempt a will save (DC 10 + (2 for each check attempted)) to cease attempts.

Well, I'd like to hear opinions on this. I felt this better represented stubborness than MattMart's concept since the stubborn person will keep trying even if logic says they won't succeed. I did think MattMart's flaw was an excellent representation of pretentiousness.

Well, is it flaw worthy?
Willie the Duck
03-28-04, 10:28 PM For the OP, I'd say, just on principle, that the player should suggest the concept behind the flaw, then YOU (the DM) determine what the penalties be. I also agree that taking a flaw the penalizes something you are already bad at is nearly never worth a feat, since they simply avoid said situation (unless it is an unavoidable situation).

Originally posted by Lago AM3P
In fact, I can't think of a single flaw in that damn book that isn't either completely bypassable to certain characters or penalizes something they already suck at (like the shaky feat to monks) or represents a trade that a character would completely laugh at (the frail feat to druids, the vulnerable feat to clerics, the unreactive feat to, uh, clerics again.)

I'd say -1 hp/lvl is a penalty to every class. Seriously, man, lose the crusade. You're losing credibility fast. 1) the book specifically states that it alters the game balance, and 2)the section on flaws specifically says that DMs have to disallow abusive combos. It's like someone complaining about the CD they bought their child having explicit lyrics, inspite of the gigantic warning label on the front.
Lago AM3P
03-29-04, 10:47 PM Seriously, man, lose man, lose the crusade. You're losing credibility fast.

I'll give that suggestion as much thought as I feel it needs.

I also agree that taking a flaw the penalizes something you are already bad at is nearly never worth a feat, since they simply avoid said situation (unless it is an unavoidable situation).

So... then how the hell should flaws work? Flaws are generally worse than the feats they are supposed to mirror for a REASON. They are meant to shift power around to how you see fit.

You put the minimum amount of versatility the game says you should have from a category you don't want or only sort of want in a category that you really do want. Have you ever wondered why fighters don't get to trade their crap will saves for more attack bonuses or wizards don't get to trade their skill points for more spells? Well, now you can directly do it. And I can't see an advantage at all to this damn system beyond giving players more raw power.

The best solution I've seen so far for even only moderately unfair flaws (like a rogue trading a portion of his reflex save for improved buckler defense or a barbarian trading his 'succeed only on a 19 or 20' will save for karmic strike) is that the DM should watch out for stuff like this. Well, if the system can't even survive a minimum amount of power shift like this, then why do we have it?

2)the section on flaws specifically says that DMs have to disallow abusive combos. It's like someone complaining about the CD they bought their child having explicit lyrics, inspite of the gigantic warning label on the front.

If the system is so frickin' broken that the DM has to definitionally install undefined and arbitrary house rules for another set of house rules itself, then how the hell is this superior to working out your own personal system of flaws (like the above guy is doing) and asking your DM , rather than using UA's sad package?

And no one has still answered my question: in what way does shifting around raw power and weaknesses to where you want to go for your character more than the game already lets you NOT unbalance the game?

The fact that your game might be balanced after a house rule of a house rule to the point where it does nothing to resemble the original system just makes the system laughable.
celloshane
03-30-04, 02:49 AM Ok no offense to anybody, but I created this thread to discuss the flaw my player wanted to take. I'm not interested in discussing the concept of flaws, I'm interested in how flaws pertain to my situation. I'm perfectly willing to talk about the faults and/or intentions of flaws in another thread, but in this one lets keep it to the topic at hand.

And everybody stop taking shots at everyone else. Sorry to sound all authoritative, but I didn't want to waste a Wizo's time to accomplish the same thing.

So that said, can we discuss my most recent version of the flaw?
77IM
03-30-04, 10:27 AM I like the concept behind this flaw. The rules are a little bit complicated, but you seem to have stated them in a clear way. My own suggestion for the flaw would be, "If the character fails at a skill or ability check, but is able to take 20 on the check without putting himself in undue danger, then he MUST take 20 on the check, but with a -2 penalty." This reads a little easier and is better integrated with the skill system (using the take 20 rules). Another variant: "The character stubbornly refuses to give up, but this actually makes things take longer as he refuses to abandon his mistakes. When he takes 20 on a skill check, it takes 100 times as long instead of 20 times (or 20 minutes instead of 2 minutes for a 1-action skill check)."

However, this entire flaw presumes that the character is going to be making skill checks. Dwarven clerics have CRAP for skills. You can guarantee that whatever feat this guy takes will be used in every session -- make sure that he is going to make a few skill checks in every session too or else the penalty is not a real penalty. If his only skills are Concentration, Spellcraft and Knowledge (Religion), disallow it.

The definition of min/maxing is: minimizing something you don't care about in order to maximize something you care about ... for example, minimizing skill effectiveness while maximizing combat effectiveness. A certain amount of min/maxing is built into the rules and is OK. The flaw system increases the opportunities for min/maxing, so you as a DM need to decide if that's OK, or if you're going to use your judgement to reign in such "abuses" to keep flawed characters roughly balanced with non-flawed character. It's your call.

-- 77IM
Lago AM3P
03-30-04, 08:12 PM If you absolutely must have a flaw, then 771M is correct.

If you make a flaw too harsh, either they won't take it at all (then your house rule has failed) or they won't engage in any activity at all pertaining to the flaw, especially if they're already bad at it. While a monk already generally sucks with ranged weapons, at least they can use it with a minimum amount of success sometimes--why would you make it so that they would never ever want to use ranged weapons?

That said, I would just make it a -2 on all charisma checks, including turning, and opposed checks where he's opposing someone else's charisma check (like intimidate or bluff or resisting charm instructions). It'd be definitely big enough to notice yet won't completely cripple the character in those areas.
EvilDuck
03-30-04, 08:30 PM 1-The Diplomacy penalty can be eliminated by the Negotiator feat. The penalties flaws give should be at least 50%-100% bigger than the bonuses feats can give.
2-The Charisma check penalty is basically Pathetic without affecting spellcasting, turning. Make the penalty -2.

So your flaw comes out like this:

Stubborn
Your character is an antisocial kill-joy.
Penalty: Your character gets a -4 penalty to Diplomacy checks, and a -2 penalty to all other Charisma-based checks.

Now change the name. Stubborn is more of a trait than a flaw. Being stubborn isn't always bad. Maybe Antisocial, or EvilDuck-esque...

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
celloshane 03-13-04, 02:05 PM	I have allowed the players in my group to use the Flaws option. One player was unsatisfied with the flaws listed, but read the section on creating your own flaw. He came up with this Stubborn This character takes a -2 penalty to Diplomacy and a -1 penalty on all other Charisma checks. I should mention the player plays a Dwarven Cleric. I feel the flaw allows him to expand his roleplaying, but I'm not sure it's as detrimental as a Flaw needs to be. I'd like opinions on whether the flaw is balanced, and if not, what you would change it to.
MeepoTheMighty 03-13-04, 02:08 PM	I'd allow it, as long as you make sure that the -1 penalty applies to turning undead.
celloshane 03-13-04, 02:18 PM	I would definately require the -1 to apply to Turning checks. What if I required the -1 to apply to Intelligence checks as well? Stubborness can cloud your judgement and make you unwilling to accept new ideas. Or would this be too harsh?
Archtyrant Terevoth 03-13-04, 04:15 PM	That's a very weak flaw and he's stealing the bonus feat if you allow him to take that. Unless your game makes huge use of social skills, this flaw isn't much of a disadvantage at all. And it doesn't really make sense either... He's stubborn so he has a penalty to intimidating and bluffing people? Eh? That doesn't sound right. I don't really think stubborness can be accurately reflected in a flaw. There really isn't any logical game consequence of being stubborn. If anything you could make it a trait, where it grants a +1 bonus to saves agaisnt compulsion spells and a -1 penalty to saves against illusions.
trapspringer 03-13-04, 06:55 PM	This flaw is acceptable. It is simply 'pathetic' but with a greater penalty on diplomacy. Were it that he took pathetic: charisma, he would only be stuck with a -1 penalty on all charisma checks
Veton 03-13-04, 07:09 PM	Originally posted by celloshane I would definately require the -1 to apply to Turning checks. Why? The reason he takes the hit to Charisma checkes is because he's so stubborn that people don't really like him as much. That has nothing to do with Turning. What if I required the -1 to apply to Intelligence checks as well? Stubborness can cloud your judgement and make you unwilling to accept new ideas. Or would this be too harsh? So if he's stubborn, then he won't notice the switch to turn off the trap? (If he was a Rogue, of course, but this is just an example). I think you will need to define what skills he takes the Charisma hit on. Intimidate wouldn't, but Handle Animal will.
Xeviat-DM 03-13-04, 07:28 PM	Trapspringer has an interesting point. Just have the character take a -2 penalty to charisma, otherwise he's basically getting something for nothing. The book even warns against flaws that penalize social skills.
Lago AM3P 03-13-04, 08:24 PM	When did this become a problem? We already allow flaws in the game that DON'T HURT THE CHARACTER AT ALL, like low-wisdom fighters taking more penalties to spotting and listening, mounted paladins taking penalties to their land speed, and wizards taking penalties to attack rolls when they attack with targeted spells! If you're okay with all of the above, then there's no reason not to let this feat in. At least this will actually be noticable.
Lago AM3P 03-13-04, 08:28 PM	In fact, I can't think of a single flaw in that damn book that isn't either completely bypassable to certain characters or penalizes something they already suck at (like the shaky feat to monks) or represents a trade that a character would completely laugh at (the frail feat to druids, the vulnerable feat to clerics, the unreactive feat to, uh, clerics again.)
MattMart 03-22-04, 07:13 PM	it allways hurts to be worse at spot or listen... especially when you are the only one who doesnt get to act during the surprise round....
Soulmage 03-23-04, 09:17 AM	Originally posted by Lago AM3P In fact, I can't think of a single flaw in that damn book that isn't either completely bypassable to certain characters or penalizes something they already suck at (like the shaky feat to monks) or represents a trade that a character would completely laugh at (the frail feat to druids, the vulnerable feat to clerics, the unreactive feat to, uh, clerics again.) You seem to be on an anti-flaw crusade. On the other thread, I pointed out the system I was using and how you could create a balanced workable system, but instead you refused to consider the modified system, and just continued to rant about how flaws as a concept were broken and the whole thing ought to just be pitched. Now here you are again doing basically the same thing. Why does whether or not other people use flaws mean so much to you? Its obvious that it does from your tireless efforts to get the whole community to turn away from them. As far as this flaw goes, I'd agree with the other poster. Just have the dwarf player take the -2 to Charisma. That hurts him on turn undead, and divine feats, which is much more significant than the impact to social skills.
Millennium 03-24-04, 06:22 AM	This doesn't smell right. If the -1 penalty applied to turning undead then it might be useful, but it doesn't make sense for stubbornness to impede the turning of undead. If anything, I would think it should enhance turning undead. Your player almost certainly knows this, and will try to argue it. This flaw is a trap.
MattMart 03-24-04, 08:42 AM	Maybe you should turn stubborness into a trait...-2 to all charisma related skill checks, +2 to will saves to resist charm and compulsion effects.... if he doesnt agree than he doesnt want stubborness to build on a character concept, he's just looking for a cheap feat and I would tell him tough patoots...
(Psi)SeveredHead 03-25-04, 10:12 PM	Originally posted by MattMart Maybe you should turn stubborness into a trait...-2 to all charisma related skill checks, +2 to will saves to resist charm and compulsion effects.... if he doesnt agree than he doesnt want stubborness to build on a character concept, he's just looking for a cheap feat and I would tell him tough patoots... I'm not seeing -2 to all Charisma-related skill checks as a significant penalty. If he's not the party's face, he will rarely need to make these checks (the saving throw bonus will come up more often). The feat is giving a combat bonus, so there should be a combat penalty. RP should balance RP, and combat balance combat, with no crossovers.
Lago AM3P 03-26-04, 04:53 AM	Now here you are again doing basically the same thing. Why does whether or not other people use flaws mean so much to you? Its obvious that it does from your tireless efforts to get the whole community to turn away from them. Check the date of my post on this thread, and then on the separate thread I started. There was no way I could have read your suggestions before I posted it. So... back off.
MattMart 03-26-04, 08:51 AM	Originally posted by (Psi)SeveredHead I'm not seeing -2 to all Charisma-related skill checks as a significant penalty. If he's not the party's face, he will rarely need to make these checks (the saving throw bonus will come up more often). The feat is giving a combat bonus, so there should be a combat penalty. RP should balance RP, and combat balance combat, with no crossovers. okay.... -2 to diplomacy checks, -1 to all other Charisma related checks +3 to Sense motive checks or maybe you can make stubborn a flaw of a different nature: *Cannot retry any failed skill check. if you fail climbing the wall the first time than you'll be damned if your gunna make a fool out of yourself and try it again. that might be worth a feat
celloshane 03-28-04, 03:51 PM	MattMart thanks for getting me thinking again. Just so everyone knows I did not allow the original flaw stated. However, I now feel like I've cheated my player out of a flaw since none of the UA flaws fit his character. I was discussing MattMart's post with a friend, and we came up with essentially the exact opposite. Stubborn If a player fails a skill check that can be retried, he must reattempt the check immediately. The retry is attempted at a (cumulative) -2 penalty. If the player fails five attempts consecutively, he may choose to stop. If the player stops and rests, then attempts the same check again, he starts at a -2 penalty. A player in immediate life-threatening danger from a source other than the skill check, may cease immediately. A player in life-threatening danger from the skill check (such as disarming a trap) may attempt a will save (DC 10 + (2 for each check attempted)) to cease attempts. Well, I'd like to hear opinions on this. I felt this better represented stubborness than MattMart's concept since the stubborn person will keep trying even if logic says they won't succeed. I did think MattMart's flaw was an excellent representation of pretentiousness. Well, is it flaw worthy?
Willie the Duck 03-28-04, 10:28 PM	For the OP, I'd say, just on principle, that the player should suggest the concept behind the flaw, then YOU (the DM) determine what the penalties be. I also agree that taking a flaw the penalizes something you are already bad at is nearly never worth a feat, since they simply avoid said situation (unless it is an unavoidable situation). Originally posted by Lago AM3P In fact, I can't think of a single flaw in that damn book that isn't either completely bypassable to certain characters or penalizes something they already suck at (like the shaky feat to monks) or represents a trade that a character would completely laugh at (the frail feat to druids, the vulnerable feat to clerics, the unreactive feat to, uh, clerics again.) I'd say -1 hp/lvl is a penalty to every class. Seriously, man, lose the crusade. You're losing credibility fast. 1) the book specifically states that it alters the game balance, and 2)the section on flaws specifically says that DMs have to disallow abusive combos. It's like someone complaining about the CD they bought their child having explicit lyrics, inspite of the gigantic warning label on the front.
Lago AM3P 03-29-04, 10:47 PM	Seriously, man, lose man, lose the crusade. You're losing credibility fast. I'll give that suggestion as much thought as I feel it needs. I also agree that taking a flaw the penalizes something you are already bad at is nearly never worth a feat, since they simply avoid said situation (unless it is an unavoidable situation). So... then how the hell should flaws work? Flaws are generally worse than the feats they are supposed to mirror for a REASON. They are meant to shift power around to how you see fit. You put the minimum amount of versatility the game says you should have from a category you don't want or only sort of want in a category that you really do want. Have you ever wondered why fighters don't get to trade their crap will saves for more attack bonuses or wizards don't get to trade their skill points for more spells? Well, now you can directly do it. And I can't see an advantage at all to this damn system beyond giving players more raw power. The best solution I've seen so far for even only moderately unfair flaws (like a rogue trading a portion of his reflex save for improved buckler defense or a barbarian trading his 'succeed only on a 19 or 20' will save for karmic strike) is that the DM should watch out for stuff like this. Well, if the system can't even survive a minimum amount of power shift like this, then why do we have it? 2)the section on flaws specifically says that DMs have to disallow abusive combos. It's like someone complaining about the CD they bought their child having explicit lyrics, inspite of the gigantic warning label on the front. If the system is so frickin' broken that the DM has to definitionally install undefined and arbitrary house rules for another set of house rules itself, then how the hell is this superior to working out your own personal system of flaws (like the above guy is doing) and asking your DM , rather than using UA's sad package? And no one has still answered my question: in what way does shifting around raw power and weaknesses to where you want to go for your character more than the game already lets you NOT unbalance the game? The fact that your game might be balanced after a house rule of a house rule to the point where it does nothing to resemble the original system just makes the system laughable.
celloshane 03-30-04, 02:49 AM	Ok no offense to anybody, but I created this thread to discuss the flaw my player wanted to take. I'm not interested in discussing the concept of flaws, I'm interested in how flaws pertain to my situation. I'm perfectly willing to talk about the faults and/or intentions of flaws in another thread, but in this one lets keep it to the topic at hand. And everybody stop taking shots at everyone else. Sorry to sound all authoritative, but I didn't want to waste a Wizo's time to accomplish the same thing. So that said, can we discuss my most recent version of the flaw?
77IM 03-30-04, 10:27 AM	I like the concept behind this flaw. The rules are a little bit complicated, but you seem to have stated them in a clear way. My own suggestion for the flaw would be, "If the character fails at a skill or ability check, but is able to take 20 on the check without putting himself in undue danger, then he MUST take 20 on the check, but with a -2 penalty." This reads a little easier and is better integrated with the skill system (using the take 20 rules). Another variant: "The character stubbornly refuses to give up, but this actually makes things take longer as he refuses to abandon his mistakes. When he takes 20 on a skill check, it takes 100 times as long instead of 20 times (or 20 minutes instead of 2 minutes for a 1-action skill check)." However, this entire flaw presumes that the character is going to be making skill checks. Dwarven clerics have CRAP for skills. You can guarantee that whatever feat this guy takes will be used in every session -- make sure that he is going to make a few skill checks in every session too or else the penalty is not a real penalty. If his only skills are Concentration, Spellcraft and Knowledge (Religion), disallow it. The definition of min/maxing is: minimizing something you don't care about in order to maximize something you care about ... for example, minimizing skill effectiveness while maximizing combat effectiveness. A certain amount of min/maxing is built into the rules and is OK. The flaw system increases the opportunities for min/maxing, so you as a DM need to decide if that's OK, or if you're going to use your judgement to reign in such "abuses" to keep flawed characters roughly balanced with non-flawed character. It's your call. -- 77IM
Lago AM3P 03-30-04, 08:12 PM	If you absolutely must have a flaw, then 771M is correct. If you make a flaw too harsh, either they won't take it at all (then your house rule has failed) or they won't engage in any activity at all pertaining to the flaw, especially if they're already bad at it. While a monk already generally sucks with ranged weapons, at least they can use it with a minimum amount of success sometimes--why would you make it so that they would never ever want to use ranged weapons? That said, I would just make it a -2 on all charisma checks, including turning, and opposed checks where he's opposing someone else's charisma check (like intimidate or bluff or resisting charm instructions). It'd be definitely big enough to notice yet won't completely cripple the character in those areas.
EvilDuck 03-30-04, 08:30 PM	1-The Diplomacy penalty can be eliminated by the Negotiator feat. The penalties flaws give should be at least 50%-100% bigger than the bonuses feats can give. 2-The Charisma check penalty is basically Pathetic without affecting spellcasting, turning. Make the penalty -2. So your flaw comes out like this: Stubborn Your character is an antisocial kill-joy. Penalty: Your character gets a -4 penalty to Diplomacy checks, and a -2 penalty to all other Charisma-based checks. Now change the name. Stubborn is more of a trait than a flaw. Being stubborn isn't always bad. Maybe Antisocial, or EvilDuck-esque...