UA flaw system balanced? [Archive] - Wizards Community

UA flaw system balanced? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
AAB
06-12-07, 12:39 AM hey, i'm thinking of introducing the flaw system into my DnD game and i was wondering if it tended to work pretty well or if it would destroy DnD as i knew it. any insights would be spectacular.
Pizzini3000
06-12-07, 01:06 AM if you're fine with min/maxing, then you should be fine with flaws. Some are certainly more balanced than others. I limit my players to one flaw, however.
Chaos90
06-12-07, 01:39 AM I think the flaw system is perfectly fine(and fun to roleplay), as long as your players get a little varied in what they choose(having the entire party be innatentive was pretty funny). Also, make sure that the feats they choose aren't crazy or anything.
Lawkeeper
06-12-07, 03:03 AM The flaw system is prone to abuse and min/maxing, off course, but no more than any other part of the D&D system. The flaws give a mechanic penalty, but as players will choose to penalize things they don't use much, this is essentially a role-play aid in ensuring every character has some great weakness. With my group, we have house-ruled that you need to take at least one flaw for your PC.

For example, a primary spellcaster will probably gravitate around the Non-Combattant flaw, so that his flaw won't come in play very often - but when it does, his inherent weakness will really shine and this'll make a memorable event in your game (like the time when my non-combattant elf wizard/cleric tried to stab a foe with a spear and ended rolling a natural 1 with a total attack modifier of -1 for a net result of 0...).
Sleepwalker13666
06-12-07, 04:14 AM Balanced is hard to say with a strait face, on one hand I generally don't feel the flaws make up for the bonuses received, however I also feel the players deserve more feats than the game gives them. The biggest impact it will have is players will qualify for stuff sooner. But for the most part it has not hurt my games to allow them.
RobbyPants
06-12-07, 10:45 AM As others have posted, this encourages min/maxing, but really, so does feat selection, skill selection, multi-class combinations, and about every other choice a player makes.

You may want to tweak the system if it looks like every arcane caster chooses non-combatant and every heavy armor melee tank chooses shaky and murky eyed. If nothing else, it can get quite cheesy fast. You end up with a group that's either not trained to fight, or that has minor epilesy and catarax. :P

Now, some of these flaws can be used to great effect for RP reasons too. Here are a few examples:

The Weak Willed flaw can make a character with no self control. This can make for a fun (annoying) chaotic-aligned rogue.
Weak willed combined with a high wisdom score and/or the alertness feat can make a character who is insightful and intuitive, but lacks self control. This is a simlar result to the 2E Player's Option rules of splitting abilities into sub-abilities (like Wis into Intuition and WIllpower).
Innatentive can be great for fostering an ADHD flavor. Perhaps the character just can't concentrate on anything for long periods of time. Maybe they're so into their own little world that they fail to notice things right next to them.

One side effect of using flaws is that sooner or later, you or your players will want to create flaws. Be careful how you create them. Read the paragraphs in the beginning of the flaw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm) section:
Metagame Analysis: Creating Flaws
You can create new flaws, but be careful: Flaws can unbalance your game. When creating flaws, keep a few issues in mind:

A flaw must have a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities. Flaws with primarily roleplaying or story effects have unpredictable effects on game balance.
Flaws are generally bigger in magnitude than feats. That's because players always choose flaws that have the least impact on their characters, while taking feats that have the most. For example, while a feat affecting skills grants a +2 bonus on two skills, its counterpart flaw might impose a -4 penalty on two skills.
A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role. That way, a player can't reduce the flaw's importance through multiclassing. For instance, a flaw that only affects spellcasters might seem reasonable-but for nonspellcaster characters, the flaw likely proves meaningless. Even if you restrict the selection of such feats to characters of specific classes, a player can easily select a spellcasting class at 1st level, choose two flaws that apply to spellcasters, gain the bonus feats, multiclass into a nonspellcasting class at 2nd level and thereafter proceed as a primarily nonspellcasting character. The player has sacrificed a level to gain two bonus feats, a tradeoff that appeals to some players.
Similarly, a flaw that penalizes a character's Charisma based skill checks only has a significant impact on the party spokesperson-the quiet fighter or barbarian likely won't feel any impact from the penalties.

The basic idea is to not make flaws which will have no negative impact on the character. At that point, you might as well be giving away free feats. Also, try not to base the premise of the flaw on an injury. Otherwise, spells like regeneration and heal might totally remove them. Using a 6th or 7th level spell to gain a feat is quite broken indeed.

Hopefully you all have fun with the system, and it's not abused too thoroughly. ;)
trapspringer
06-12-07, 02:29 PM They are balanced, especially at lower levels.

By mid levels they can technically "grant access" to feats the player would otherwise be unable to have gotten. That little jump ahead in the power curve can shift things around a little. 'Course frankly, that only applies to classes that will already be a whole lot more powerful than the others anyway (clerics and such).

Generally the flaw is gunna' be vastly more damaging than any feat one could take. It just gives first level characters the ability to specialize a little more thoroughly.

Short answer: Yes, flaws are more or less balanced.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AAB 06-12-07, 12:39 AM	hey, i'm thinking of introducing the flaw system into my DnD game and i was wondering if it tended to work pretty well or if it would destroy DnD as i knew it. any insights would be spectacular.
Pizzini3000 06-12-07, 01:06 AM	if you're fine with min/maxing, then you should be fine with flaws. Some are certainly more balanced than others. I limit my players to one flaw, however.
Chaos90 06-12-07, 01:39 AM	I think the flaw system is perfectly fine(and fun to roleplay), as long as your players get a little varied in what they choose(having the entire party be innatentive was pretty funny). Also, make sure that the feats they choose aren't crazy or anything.
Lawkeeper 06-12-07, 03:03 AM	The flaw system is prone to abuse and min/maxing, off course, but no more than any other part of the D&D system. The flaws give a mechanic penalty, but as players will choose to penalize things they don't use much, this is essentially a role-play aid in ensuring every character has some great weakness. With my group, we have house-ruled that you need to take at least one flaw for your PC. For example, a primary spellcaster will probably gravitate around the Non-Combattant flaw, so that his flaw won't come in play very often - but when it does, his inherent weakness will really shine and this'll make a memorable event in your game (like the time when my non-combattant elf wizard/cleric tried to stab a foe with a spear and ended rolling a natural 1 with a total attack modifier of -1 for a net result of 0...).
Sleepwalker13666 06-12-07, 04:14 AM	Balanced is hard to say with a strait face, on one hand I generally don't feel the flaws make up for the bonuses received, however I also feel the players deserve more feats than the game gives them. The biggest impact it will have is players will qualify for stuff sooner. But for the most part it has not hurt my games to allow them.
RobbyPants 06-12-07, 10:45 AM	As others have posted, this encourages min/maxing, but really, so does feat selection, skill selection, multi-class combinations, and about every other choice a player makes. You may want to tweak the system if it looks like every arcane caster chooses non-combatant and every heavy armor melee tank chooses shaky and murky eyed. If nothing else, it can get quite cheesy fast. You end up with a group that's either not trained to fight, or that has minor epilesy and catarax. :P Now, some of these flaws can be used to great effect for RP reasons too. Here are a few examples: The Weak Willed flaw can make a character with no self control. This can make for a fun (annoying) chaotic-aligned rogue. Weak willed combined with a high wisdom score and/or the alertness feat can make a character who is insightful and intuitive, but lacks self control. This is a simlar result to the 2E Player's Option rules of splitting abilities into sub-abilities (like Wis into Intuition and WIllpower). Innatentive can be great for fostering an ADHD flavor. Perhaps the character just can't concentrate on anything for long periods of time. Maybe they're so into their own little world that they fail to notice things right next to them. One side effect of using flaws is that sooner or later, you or your players will want to create flaws. Be careful how you create them. Read the paragraphs in the beginning of the flaw (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm) section: Metagame Analysis: Creating Flaws You can create new flaws, but be careful: Flaws can unbalance your game. When creating flaws, keep a few issues in mind: A flaw must have a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities. Flaws with primarily roleplaying or story effects have unpredictable effects on game balance. Flaws are generally bigger in magnitude than feats. That's because players always choose flaws that have the least impact on their characters, while taking feats that have the most. For example, while a feat affecting skills grants a +2 bonus on two skills, its counterpart flaw might impose a -4 penalty on two skills. A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role. That way, a player can't reduce the flaw's importance through multiclassing. For instance, a flaw that only affects spellcasters might seem reasonable-but for nonspellcaster characters, the flaw likely proves meaningless. Even if you restrict the selection of such feats to characters of specific classes, a player can easily select a spellcasting class at 1st level, choose two flaws that apply to spellcasters, gain the bonus feats, multiclass into a nonspellcasting class at 2nd level and thereafter proceed as a primarily nonspellcasting character. The player has sacrificed a level to gain two bonus feats, a tradeoff that appeals to some players. Similarly, a flaw that penalizes a character's Charisma based skill checks only has a significant impact on the party spokesperson-the quiet fighter or barbarian likely won't feel any impact from the penalties. The basic idea is to not make flaws which will have no negative impact on the character. At that point, you might as well be giving away free feats. Also, try not to base the premise of the flaw on an injury. Otherwise, spells like regeneration and heal might totally remove them. Using a 6th or 7th level spell to gain a feat is quite broken indeed. Hopefully you all have fun with the system, and it's not abused too thoroughly. ;)
trapspringer 06-12-07, 02:29 PM	They are balanced, especially at lower levels. By mid levels they can technically "grant access" to feats the player would otherwise be unable to have gotten. That little jump ahead in the power curve can shift things around a little. 'Course frankly, that only applies to classes that will already be a whole lot more powerful than the others anyway (clerics and such). Generally the flaw is gunna' be vastly more damaging than any feat one could take. It just gives first level characters the ability to specialize a little more thoroughly. Short answer: Yes, flaws are more or less balanced.