Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pystian 04-06-04, 06:24 AM	Captain: "Lieutenant, have you been watching Jeliveer, one of the new recuits who arrived last week? She claims she's had no actual combat experience, only training at her local militia, but that's a little hard to believe if you've seen her fight. In practice I've seen her use Ol' Jack's Swing [power attack], Kemini's Defense [combat expertise], the Borlin Technique (Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword], and the Broad Palm Grip (Weapon Focus: Bastard Sword)." Lieutenant: "Well everyone can be taught something with a little patience [first level feat], and just as you said, Jeliveer has spent years training at her local militia [fighter feat]. Besides, you know how quickly those Humans pick up a new trick once they've set their mind to it [Human feat]. Oh, and of course there is the fact that she has a broken leg...[flaw feat]"
Pystian 04-13-04, 06:41 AM	Bump?
GreenKnight 04-13-04, 07:49 AM	Oh, and of course there is the fact that she has a broken leg...[flaw feat]" That made no damn sense, whatsoever.
Millennium 04-13-04, 08:13 AM	Originally posted by GreenKnight That made no damn sense, whatsoever. I think that's the point, actually; that it doesn't make sense. Flaws are something that only the strongest roleplayers should be using, because it's hard to really justify the use of a flaw to gain extra feats. For most people who use Flaws, it's nothing more than a min-maxing game.
Arthur_Pendragon 04-13-04, 12:49 PM	Oh, and of course there is the fact that she has a broken leg...[flaw feat]" :rofl: :heehee :rofl:
Pystian 04-14-04, 04:15 AM	Right on the money, Millennium. That was the point I was trying to make. Could you perhaps give me an example of when role-playingwise gaining a feat from a flaw makes sense? I'm not saying you're wrong about flaws being for the strongest roleplayers, I'm just saying I don't understand you yet. Thanks in advance. And Arthur_Pendragon, I'm glad someone else thought it was funny...
Arthur_Pendragon 04-14-04, 04:26 AM	:D
solkanuk 04-14-04, 06:58 AM	They don't make sense, at least at first level, it may be easier to think about it as a reverse ECL, due to thier disabilities they are forced to learn faster in order to keep up with their companions, & the difficulties they face. In my games I was thinking of forcing people to take flaws at first level, but not gain the feat until 2nd level (& each level thereafter if they have taken multiple flaws). To me this represents more the - no better at the start, but is forced to learn quickly.
Pystian 04-14-04, 07:28 AM	solkanuk, gaining the bonus feat at 2nd level sounds like a good idea. I'm still not sure I follow though. If the Crouching Tiger monastery has an elite force of warrior monks that are only trained after they've demonstrated certain techniques, the head monks may get curious when they find out all of the youngest members are "special". They're all "slow to react" or "weak willed"... I can see why traits make sense, because the bonus is directly related to penalty, but it's not quite the same with flaws. Mylo can hold his breath longer than some lizardfolk and he's one of the best marathon runners I know [endurance], but that's because he throws like a girl. [sexism not meant, I know plenty of girls that can throw well].
solkanuk 04-14-04, 08:00 AM	what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Bob & Bill are two adventurers at 1st level, but Bob has a broken leg (or whatever). They fight a band of orcs, Bill fights but knows he can try to run away if things go bad - while Bob knows that he has no real means of escape so is forced to fight as though it may be his last fight, his mind works overtime trying to think of new tricks and methods that may give him a slight advantage, hence he picks up a new feat quicker than he would otherwise. This is a rather poor example, but I can't think of anything better at the moment. In the end it is an optional rule, and I think I actualy prefer Traits, but I can see how it may be good for some campaigns.
Pystian 04-14-04, 08:47 AM	No, I think that was actually a very good example. I still don't think flaws is something for me, but at least I understand the other side of the arguement. Thank you.
Dartanel 04-14-04, 09:23 AM	Personally, I chafe at the Flaw = Bonus feat. I do agree with the 'What doesn't kill me...' analogy, though, and that gives me a much better idea. In the DMG under the XP section, they mention that fighting under difficult circumstances gives the PCs extra XP. A flaw is an excellent example of a difficult circumstance. So, I wouldn't give a PC a bonus feat for taking a flaw, but in any encounter in which the flaw hindered them, I would give them extra XP.
Pystian 04-14-04, 09:32 AM	That's a cool idea! Then you can't just take something you don't worry much about anyhow and expect to benefit from it. Then it's actually a role-playing device. Really good idea Dartanel.
solkanuk 04-14-04, 12:34 PM	I actually find that idea more compelling as well, though obviously not for all groups.
Pystian 04-14-04, 02:25 PM	I think I´d make flaws a little less mechanical as well. How would you reward having to overcome say a -6 to initiative? Instead of just a penalty, it´d have to be something... like a speech impediment or phobia or whatnot. What kind of flaws would you be interested in playing if they were more along those lines?
Ryan_Singer 04-21-04, 10:33 PM	How about a flaw gives you a 10% bonus to EXP. Sound reasonable?-Ryan
Wil_Hyral 04-21-04, 10:36 PM	The discrepancies everyone's talking about are to be mitigated by the DM. Lord, it's like none of you actually read pages 1-3 of the DMG, any version. And yeah I roleplay the flaws. I'm the DM of an NPC who has "Stout" I believe, and every time said character stands up from the table, I iterate how long it takes them, and how much of a chore it is. PS: I think everyone should make "stout" dwarves, just to be cute.
Baron Phylos 04-22-04, 11:22 PM	Originally posted by Ryan_Singer How about a flaw gives you a 10% bonus to EXP. Sound reasonable?-Ryan Not in every situation. The 10% should only apply if the flaws actually hinders the character An illeterate fighter shouldn't get 10% after defeating a bunch of dire rats. But a low reflex cleric should get the bonus when he survived and defeated a black dragon who generously exposed him to its acid breath.
SIippery Mind 04-23-04, 02:25 PM	Originally posted by Baron Phylos Not in every situation. The 10% should only apply if the flaws actually hinders the character Ok, so I take "Slow to React" flaw, hinders me every combat so I get 10% every time. :D I think that's why flaws give you feats, not becasue they are related (Please read the "behind the curtain" regarding flaws and feats and you may gain some understanding; it's like they anticipated this very thread.) Also, another reason why they give feats for flaws is that it is a one time benefit. Sure, they may be able to use a feat time and again but the DM doesn't have to factor in flaws every time there is an encounter. Also, if you are going to use flaws, they ALL should have a game mechanic (again, read the "behind the curtain entry.") P.S. Stout is not a flaw.
Dartanel 04-23-04, 08:02 PM	No, an initiative penalty flaw would only hinder you if your attackers gained some advantage by catching you flat-footed (I.E. They're rogues or you're a monk and they got a shot off at you)
lordyuri24 04-25-04, 06:12 PM	I am Joe Shmow soldier. As a child I contracted polio. While local Cleric of SomeCrazyDeityGuy managed to cure me of it it left me shaken and unable to hold a steady hand (so now I have the Shaken Flaw). So when I joined the military they realized giving me a bow would accomplish the same as giving me a Robe of the Archmage, so they trained me specifically with using Longswords. I learned the very remedial of bowplay, but I learned the finer points of swordplay (so now I have Weapon Focus: Longsword). Just an example of how flaws should work. Obviously any intelligent DM would make sure that the flaw balanced with the feat they took (such as crapping up the bow house to be king of the sword castle). If you wanted to be even more specific and a bit more strict increase the penalty of the flaw. Such as the demonstration above, the soldier couldn't use a bow so don't give him proficiency in ranged weapons (another use for variant weapon proficiencies, don't open any ranged weapon options unless they take a feat for it), to balance them a bit more.
SIippery Mind 04-26-04, 04:06 AM	An excellent example. Here's another (that might not be quite as excellent:) a wizard character having the murky-eyed flaw because she has pretty much been indoors studying by candlelight for most of her life, gaining skill focus in spellcraft or a knowledge skill.
SIippery Mind 04-26-04, 04:06 AM	An excellent example. Here's another (that might not be quite as excellent:) a wizard character having the murky-eyed flaw because she has pretty much been indoors studying by candlelight for most of her life, gaining skill focus in spellcraft or a knowledge skill.
SIippery Mind 04-26-04, 04:06 AM	An excellent example. Here's another (that might not be quite as excellent:) a wizard character having the murky-eyed flaw because she has pretty much been indoors studying by candlelight for most of her life, gaining skill focus in spellcraft or a knowledge skill. Here's a thought, how about having the DM choose the flaw, rather than the player. I bet there would be alot less players wanting to pick up flaws then.
SIippery Mind 04-26-04, 07:14 AM	Well, I feel stupid, posted the same thing 3 times by accident. Sorry folks. I tried to delete the redundant posts but I couldn't. Maybe i could use a little help. :D
Necromancyr 05-01-04, 01:16 AM	Well...I was going to take the Shaky Flaw to take the Weapon Focus (Short Sword) feat... That or doing the opposite seems to be a decent trade off. Basically, Flaw/Feat combo's should have to be adhered to (...kind of 'super traits'...)
mickshrimpton 05-03-04, 08:58 PM	This is a really interesting discussion. It seems that perhaps most D&D players feel the flaw system works poorly for the game. That being the case, why do similar games like GURPS and Ars Magica really shine with their own flaws systems? Is it an inherent difference in ideology between games? Or is the D&D system of flaws not integrated as well as that of GURPS, Ars Magica, etc?
hiryuu 05-04-04, 04:21 PM	Originally posted by mickshrimpton This is a really interesting discussion. It seems that perhaps most D&D players feel the flaw system works poorly for the game. That being the case, why do similar games like GURPS and Ars Magica really shine with their own flaws systems? Is it an inherent difference in ideology between games? Or is the D&D system of flaws not integrated as well as that of GURPS, Ars Magica, etc? GURPS is built on its flaw system. Expect a character in GURPS to have a walking mass of flaws. D&D is built on two lines of advancement: Guy and Stuff, with specific power stratifications between benchmarks ("levels"), and flaws are not an inherent part of that system - the mechanics and the behavior of the character are not, as written, intertwined at as deeply as they are in other games (this is why there appears to be a stratification between "roleplaying" and "rollplaying," even if the gap isn't as wide as some people believe). I notice plenty of gamers who make a character and read the rules as if they were a lawyer, and anything that is general and has no definite rules-based effects are the kinds of things they jump on (as an aside, THIS IS A BAD THING TO DO, FOLKS).
Dunelord 05-23-04, 04:55 AM	I think maybe your looking at it from a way that it wasn't intended. The idea is to make a character who it makes total sence to have one more feat then they are allowed to, while still being balanced. This came up for one of my players who wanted to play an 1st level elf ranger with exotic weapon Bastard Sword and Improved Unarmed Strike. I won't go into his back story but it was written down 12 pages or so. Now it seems kind of unfair to the other PCs to just GIVE that PC an extra feat so you look for something to bring that into balance, and still let that character make sence. Hopefully it will be something that flows with the back stroy and game mecanics of the PC in question but to me at least it seems better to have a PC who makes sence and can do everything they should know how to do and has one draw back as a balance issue then make someone wait 2 or more levels to take a feat.
Art_Tillary 05-23-04, 05:52 AM	Originally posted by mickshrimpton This is a really interesting discussion. It seems that perhaps most D&D players feel the flaw system works poorly for the game. That being the case, why do similar games like GURPS and Ars Magica really shine with their own flaws systems? Is it an inherent difference in ideology between games? Or is the D&D system of flaws not integrated as well as that of GURPS, Ars Magica, etc? Hiryuu made a good point. GURPS flaws are balanced vs advantages by the point system. You can take a bunch of minor flaws to get a single decent advantage. Everybody in the game knows that certain flaws are worth this many points. And that this feat is worth this many points. I think the key to doing it in d20 is to have the flaws tied into the new feat. The flaw has to have a real game mechanic penalty to off set the game mechanic bonus. The example about polio and shaking is good. You lose range weapons, but gain a melee weapon. The broken leg in the first post needs to have a real game effect. Maybe a minus 2 on dex, with all the changes that a stat change incurs. AT
Khaibit_Ema_Neteru 05-23-04, 01:31 PM	-2 on dex is a thought, but ultimately doesn't make sense. Why, for example, does my broken leg make me worse at picking locks? Disabling Devices? Picking pockets?
lordyuri24 05-23-04, 05:57 PM	Originally posted by Khaibit_Ema_Neteru -2 on dex is a thought, but ultimately doesn't make sense. Why, for example, does my broken leg make me worse at picking locks? Disabling Devices? Picking pockets? How? Have you ever had a broken leg? it is hard to do anything, you can't sit for more than 6 seconds without it cramping up or being in great pain, it would debilitate you do anything like that: Picking Locks (bending in the right position to get a good 'angle of attack' would be a pain), Disabling Device (same as Picking Locks, but moreso for HUGE machines), and Picking Pockets (it would be hard to walk past someone casually as your hand dips into their pocket when you can barely walk.).
Khaibit_Ema_Neteru 05-24-04, 12:43 AM	true, but by that reasoning, you'd be penalized on everything that required any sort of movement at all. Or sitting still, for that matter. For that, I'd better be getting a LOT more than just a feat.
Pystian 05-24-04, 03:27 AM	I had had "Slow" in mind... In retrospect, I don't think it's even worth a feat because it can be healed relatively easily.
Dunelord 05-27-04, 05:27 AM	A minor points here. A broken leg isn't actully one of the suggested flaws, and all of the ones listed are far worse.
Pystian 05-27-04, 09:07 AM	True enough, but even if the penalties were worse then they are in the book, I don't think they'd make logical sense. Even the bubonic plague can't teach you power attack.
trapspringer 06-01-04, 11:51 PM	It is unfair to base every flaw of of one 'reason.' I realize taht was no the intent of the original poster. The fact is you can justify any flaw for any feat. I will list my arguements in the following format: (Flaw) to (Feat)- (reason) Shaky to Weapon focus (longbow)- you had to practice extra hard with the long-bow to keep up with the other recruits. Frail to Toughness- You had to learn to shurg off some hard hits just to keep your lunch money. Slow to Dash- You came up with a particularly effective way to move, despite your crook-leg. Pathetic (dex) to skill focus (sleit o hand)- That'll teach 'em to make fun of you dropping the water bucket. Now for some unrelated feats/flaws. Murkey Eyed to Dodge- That post came outa no where, but it missed. Slow to React(?) to Focus (short sword)- Your patience lends precesion to your attacks. (Edit) not long yet: Pathetic (wis) to Toughness- Surem they said that you couldn't move faster than the giant mouse-trap for catchin' were rats, but you showed them... eventualy. I personally like this system, because sometimes a toon just needs more feats. Or maybe feet, depending on the flaw you take.
lordyuri24 06-02-04, 07:56 AM	Originally posted by Pystian True enough, but even if the penalties were worse then they are in the book, I don't think they'd make logical sense. Even the bubonic plague can't teach you power attack. No, but if you survive I could definatly see taking a feat that increases saves against disease. "If it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger" blah blah blah.
Khaibit_Ema_Neteru 06-02-04, 08:15 AM	Pathetic (wis) to Toughness- Surem they said that you couldn't move faster than the giant mouse-trap for catchin' were rats, but you showed them... eventualy. Alright...this is me using my one emoticon for this six month period: :rofl: