Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MrCelsius 02-24-07, 03:17 PM	In your opinion, what level of point buy is roughly equivalent to the power granted by 25 point buy with Unearthed Arcana's Flaws variant?
ppirilla 02-24-07, 04:23 PM	25, maybe 26. In my experience, flaws aren't generally too pwerful. As a DM, however, you have to make sure their weakness comes up in play.
MrCelsius 02-26-07, 08:18 PM	25, maybe 26. In my experience, flaws aren't generally too pwerful. As a DM, however, you have to make sure their weakness comes up in play. Really? Interesting. I asked two of my players whether they'd rather have 28 point-buy or 25 with flaws, and they still haven't made up their minds. I like that more feats allow a character to have a cohesive concept sooner; less time getting to your strategy, more time living it. Feels better. I'm just uncertain about how powerful such an allowance is, hence this thread. I'd love to hear input from more people on the subject.
KurenaiYami 02-26-07, 08:47 PM	They don't apply to the same part of the game. More points just make you stronger, while Flaws let you customize your character more, getting more bonuses while taking some penalties.
Board_Rider 02-26-07, 08:49 PM	I think that a flaws power is equal to amount of supplements that are allowed.
RellenMarn 02-26-07, 09:00 PM	I would agonize to, do they get to pick their flaws - our DM made us roll for them, gulp! I would say 25 + flaws is pretty equal to a 25 point buy.
Tytalus 02-27-07, 12:35 AM	I'd definitely choose the flaws. The amount of character customization they provide can not be made up with a mere 3 ability points.
Evil DM Mk3 02-27-07, 06:46 AM	I would also chose flaws. 28 point buy is a little more powerful but 25+flaws is much funner. Of course I would prefer 4d6 drop lowest with flaws.
MrCelsius 02-27-07, 07:18 AM	Fair enough. Those of you who'd choose flaws, though; how much point buy would you consider an even trade-off? How many points is the use of flaws worth to you?
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 07:40 AM	Fair enough. Those of you who'd choose flaws, though; how much point buy would you consider an even trade-off? How many points is the use of flaws worth to you? Are you trying to buy them off of using flaws?
MrCelsius 02-27-07, 07:50 AM	Are you trying to buy them off of using flaws? Not in the slightest. I'm just seeing what point-buy power level people feel allowing flaws is commensurate with. As Board_Rider pointed out, also, the number of splatbooks allowed is also a factor. So what point-buy do you think allowing flaws in a core-only game is equal to? How about with all splatbooks but Faerun? How about with Faerun as well? I'm just trying to gague people's opinions on the strength of flaws by the preestablished power-scale of point-buy.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 08:06 AM	Not in the slightest. I'm just seeing what point-buy power level people feel allowing flaws is commensurate with. As Board_Rider pointed out, also, the number of splatbooks allowed is also a factor. So what point-buy do you think allowing flaws in a core-only game is equal to? How about with all splatbooks but Faerun? How about with Faerun as well? I'm just trying to gague people's opinions on the strength of flaws by the preestablished power-scale of point-buy. Core only? Wouldn't take much. 28 would likely do it. I don't use my Faerun books as much as my other books, so for the other two I'd likely say 32 point buy would get me away from 25 + flaws.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 08:48 AM	I'd likely say 32 point buy would get me away from 25 + flaws. Anything would get me away from using Flaws as I think they are a cheesy excuse to get more Feats. I would rather play a 22-point buy character than a 25 with Flaws.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 08:52 AM	Anything would get me away from using Flaws as I think they are a cheesy excuse to get more Feats. I would rather play a 22-point buy character than a 25 with Flaws. I totally know what you're saying. It's for that reason that the Fighter is the strongest class ever made.
Epicweaver 02-27-07, 08:53 AM	Anything would get me away from using Flaws as I think they are a cheesy excuse to get more Feats.I think the inclusion of flaws is great for most campaigns... Many prestige classes have useless feat pre-requisites and flaws really help encourage players to pick the prestige class that fits their character over disregarding the inability to acquire the necessary feats. It also makes it less likely the player will resort to fighter dipping. I like Flaws.. but it really depends on the planned build of the character as to whether it's going to be useful or not (some builds just don't need that many feats to function).
Merloth 02-27-07, 08:54 AM	Do they get to choose their flaws themselves? Is it the same flaws as posted on d20srd.com? If thats so, I'd consider the flaws solution equal to 28 point buy (only Core). 30 (with complete warrior) or something like that. Our DM used the flaws posted on the srd, and I feel we got more powerful than usual characters with the same point buy.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 09:00 AM	I totally know what you're saying. It's for that reason that the Fighter is the strongest class ever made. Well, I wouldn't say "strongest", but it certainly holds its own against C.o.D.zilla and the like...
Epicweaver 02-27-07, 09:18 AM	Well, I wouldn't say "strongest", but it certainly holds its own against C.o.D.zilla and the like...Yeah, fighters are the greatest.... :rolleyes:
Zumarai 02-27-07, 09:22 AM	Yeah, fighters are the greatest.... :rolleyes: For certain Feat intensive/focused builds they are. …Especially the Double-Secret Fighter!
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 09:26 AM	I fear my initial sarcasm intended to poke fun at the idea that two feats was "cheesy" has turned this into a potential "Fighters suck" thread. My apologies. I was merely trying to point out that taking flaws is no more cheesy than being a human with a one level dip in Fighter. If you take penalties that counterbalence the feats, there is nothing wrong with them.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 09:35 AM	I fear my initial sarcasm intended to poke fun at the idea that two feats was "cheesy" has turned this into a potential "Fighters suck" thread. My apologies. And I never said that having 2 Feats was "cheesy". I was saying that taking Flaws is a cheesy excuse to gain more Feats. "But this make sense for my character!" …Yeah right.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 09:36 AM	And I never said that having 2 Feats was "cheesy". I was saying that taking Flaws is a cheesy excuse to gain more Feats. "But this make sense for my character!" …Yeah right. And how is it more cheesy than any other method of attaining feats, be it race or class?
Zumarai 02-27-07, 09:55 AM	And how is it more cheesy than any other method of attaining feats, be it race or class? Because it seems, IMO, that people take Flaws never expecting/wanting to deal with the consequences. "Ooh, my character is an archer, so I'll take some Flaw that bestows a negative in melee that has nothing to do with my character's background/history/concept to get two more archery Feats." …Lame.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 09:58 AM	Because it seems, IMO, that people take Flaws never expecting/wanting to deal with the consequences. "Ooh, my character is an archer, so I'll take some Flaw that bestows a negative in melee that has nothing to do with my character's background/history/concept to get two more archery Feats." …Lame. How is that different from just choosing a high Dex character and not taking Weapon Finesse? Also, Flaws are taken at level one, so they're just as easy to write into your backstory as your class and race, chosen at the same point in time. You're yet to distinguish Flaws from any other way of customizing a character.
Epicweaver 02-27-07, 10:08 AM	"Ooh, my character is an archer, so I'll take some Flaw that bestows a negative in melee that has nothing to do with my character's background/history/concept to get two more archery Feats."OMG! I suck in melee... yet for some completely unexplained and irrational reason I decided to specialize in ranged fighting! I understand that it makes no sense for me to have focused myself on fighting at range due to my inability to fight in melee! Properly managed, flaws aren't that bad. I've also noticed a reduction in the everyone-is-a-human syndrome that has plagued my groups for ages. We only allow 1 flaw, but it does encourage more diversity (imho). P.S. I realize what you meant Zumarai, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I read your example.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 10:11 AM	You're yet to distinguish Flaws from any other way of customizing a character. Yes I have – read above.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 10:13 AM	Yes I have – read above. No, you really haven't. Mostly just baseless complaints. There's nothing you said about flaws that can't be said about class or race selection.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 10:13 AM	OMG! I suck in melee... yet for some completely unexplained and irrational reason I decided to specialize in ranged fighting! I understand that it makes no sense for me to have focused myself on fighting at range due to my inability to fight in melee! Properly managed, flaws aren't that bad. I've also noticed a reduction in the everyone-is-a-human syndrome that has plagued my groups for ages. We only allow 1 flaw, but it does encourage more diversity (imho). P.S. I realize what you meant Zumarai, but I couldn't help but chuckle when I read your example. That's cool, but your fist paragraph makes absolutely no sense in regards to what you were responding to.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 10:17 AM	That's cool, but your fist paragraph makes absolutely no sense in regards to what you were responding to. He quoted what you wrote about an archer taking a flaw that affected melee combat, and he wrote the in-character motivation behind why somebody who was unskilled in melee would focus on archery instead. How does that make no sense?
Zumarai 02-27-07, 10:19 AM	No, you really haven't. Mostly just baseless complaints. There's nothing you said about flaws that can't be said about class or race selection. Yes, I really have, and I don't wish to repeat myself, so please go back and re-read if you have to. Look, I don’t want any panties getting in bunches, which is what always seems to happen on these boards. If Flaws are rocking the free world in your campaign than go for it, we can all only speak from personal opinions/experiences. I just happen to find them a revolting/crappy/tacked on excuse to get more Feats – the benefits of a Feat far outweigh the drawbacks of a Flaw. ...That is all.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 10:23 AM	He quoted what you wrote about an archer taking a flaw that affected melee combat, and he wrote the in-character motivation behind why somebody who was unskilled in melee would focus on archery instead. How does that make no sense? Than you both obviously didn't read/comprehend what I originally wrote. I realize you're both pro-Flaw, but please don't try to gang up on me and back each other up. I'm sure you're both big enough boys/girls to defend/explain yourselves.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 10:24 AM	Yes, I really have, and I don't wish to repeat myself, so please go back and re-read if you have to. I did, you didn't, etc etc. Look, I don’t want any panties getting in bunches, which is what always seems to happen on these boards. If Flaws are rocking the free world in your campaign than go for it, we can all only speak from personal opinions/experiences. I just happen to find them a revolting/crappy/tacked on excuse to get more Feats – the benefits of a Feat far outweigh the drawbacks of a Flaw. ...That is all. That's all well and good, I'm not trying to force you to use them, I'm just pointing out that you're using an unsound argument that seem to stem from one or two bad experiences and/or assuming the worst of the people you play with.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 10:28 AM	Than you both obviously didn't read/comprehend what I originally wrote. Then your knowledge of the English language is lacking, because what I'm inferring is directly from what you wrote. I realize you're both pro-Flaw, but please don't try to gang up on me and back each other up. I'm sure you're both big enough boys/girls to defend/explain yourselves. I see something I disagree with, I comment on it. No need to fall back on "their ganging up on me" to play the victim.
Cantankerous 02-27-07, 10:35 AM	I think that a flaws power is equal to amount of supplements that are allowed. Proviso: I think it's closer to the amount of suppliments allowed squared and then multiplied by about -0.5 if they are part of the Complete Series, which seems tailor made for them. So, one or two of them (books of the Complete series) don't matter too much, but if three get involved it's time and a half total power and all four doubles their value. THAT said, even with all four Complete's thrown in, I'd see no problem with them as long as the DM keeps in mind the value that they might have individually in his own campaign. "Non-combatant" for a low strength Wizard and "murky eyed" for a melee monster have a disproportionate value compared to the rest I find. Isshia
Zumarai 02-27-07, 10:41 AM	Then your knowledge of the English language is lacking, because what I'm inferring is directly from what you wrote. I see something I disagree with, I comment on it. No need to fall back on "their ganging up on me" to play the victim. Wow, we were getting along just fine, why do you have to resort to personal insults/attacks?
Epicweaver 02-27-07, 10:43 AM	Feats are a core limiting factor to character (class) development... If you don't want as much development, don't use Flaws (forcing characters who wish to get into a specific prestige class at the earliest possible level to multiclass), if you feel characters are too restricted by the feat limitations then use them. It doesn't really matter, either way is a perfectly acceptable way to play. You're entitled to your opinion either way. I feel that having flaws opens up more options and allows less "optimization-driven" players to achieve highly effective characters. It's the same reason why I use 32pt buy for my players as well... As long as the playing field is even across the board with the players I don't see any reason for anyone to be upset about them... Flaws always have their drawbacks, and any DM who doesn't occasionally put a Flawed character into the occasional situation where their flaw comes up doesn't deserve their DM-badge! Anywho, no need to flame/emo this thread into oblivion, this is just a friendly discussion about the merits/drawbacks of Flaws. For the optimization-driven player, the addition of flaws does present an additional challenge for the DM to ward against... (Ftr2/PsyWar2/Flaws2/Human = 9 feats)... But the party balance can be more easily broken without the effort that a feat-heavy character would bring to the table (just look at the CoDzilla). I just think that helping out characters with 1 more feat isn't such a bad thing if everyone gets the same opportunity to use it.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 10:51 AM	Wow, we were getting along just fine, why do you have to resort to personal insults/attacks? ...I didn't? You accused me and Epicweaver of "ganging up" on you, which I wasn't, and I don't see how it would be interpreted that way. So I see it as playing the victim. And saying somebody's knowledge of the English language is lacking isn't an insult. There are a number of people posting on these boards who have English as a second language, and when I began posting it was midnight on the West coast. I don't see taking a stab in the dark that you may be misunderstanding due to a language barrier as being rude. It was a guess. I apologize if it was offensive, it wasn't meant that way. All I am saying is that all you are doing is pointing back, telling me to reread what you have already read (which I did, every time you said to do so) and strangely your argument has not presented itself in the manner you believe it has, to me at least.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 10:55 AM	and strangely your argument has not presented itself in the manner you believe it has, to me at least. Aha, therein lies the problem – right on.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 11:15 AM	Aha, therein lies the problem – right on. Or you didn't actually state a valid argument. Just didn't want to post that part at first because it seemed to be an ugly thing to say, but since you're going the arrogant route, I guess that's not all that important. The point is all of your primary arguments presented a flaw (not Flaw, mind you) that is a universal part of the system. Something that is no stronger in Flaws than it is in Class choice, Feat selection, or skill choice. Knocking Flaws for the same things that are wrong with Classes and Feats doesn't work as an argument. Then you would follow with an exaggerated quote representing the worse case scenario of a player attempting to justify a Flaw (that you claimed was out of character) to try and emphasize the point, despite the fact that it would only work on the assumption that the Flaw was the last step in character creation. And it would finish with a sarcastic comment. "Yeah right" or "Lame." What you fail to take into account at any point in your argument is the fact that the Flaws are meant to represent inherent deficiencies in the player. That is the flavor given to Flaws. One does not choose to suck at melee because it won't affect their archery, one chooses to focus on archery because they are incompetent in melee. Now, just to make sure you don't brush this off yet again by telling me to re-read your earlier posts, I will re-post them and address them individually. And I never said that having 2 Feats was "cheesy". I was saying that taking Flaws is a cheesy excuse to gain more Feats. "But this make sense for my character!" …Yeah right. This being the first one that caught my eye and made me wish for further explanation. There is no actual argument for something you say, just what you say (along with quote and sarcastic comment, as mentioned above.) Because it seems, IMO, that people take Flaws never expecting/wanting to deal with the consequences. "Ooh, my character is an archer, so I'll take some Flaw that bestows a negative in melee that has nothing to do with my character's background/history/concept to get two more archery Feats." …Lame. Stating an opinion, nothing wrong with that, but once again you give no support for it. There is no more validity in saying that people take Flaws never expecting to deal with the consequences than there is in saying that people being level one Wizards never expect to tank. People have certain roles in mind when they create their characters. Flaws simply help them customize and specialize a bit more than the lack of them would. Yes I have – read above. Where? Be a good sport and point it out, because as of my fifth reading of these same lines, I am nigh certain that it is not there.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 11:25 AM	Or you didn't actually state a valid argument. Just didn't want to post that part at first because it seemed to be an ugly thing to say, but since you're going the arrogant route, I guess that's not all that important. The point is all of your primary arguments presented a flaw (not Flaw, mind you) that is a universal part of the system. Something that is no stronger in Flaws than it is in Class choice, Feat selection, or skill choice. Knocking Flaws for the same things that are wrong with Classes and Feats doesn't work as an argument. Then you would follow with an exaggerated quote representing the worse case scenario of a player attempting to justify a Flaw (that you claimed was out of character) to try and emphasize the point, despite the fact that it would only work on the assumption that the Flaw was the last step in character creation. And it would finish with a sarcastic comment. "Yeah right" or "Lame." What you fail to take into account at any point in your argument is the fact that the Flaws are meant to represent inherent deficiencies in the player. That is the flavor given to Flaws. One does not choose to suck at melee because it won't affect their archery, one chooses to focus on archery because they are incompetent in melee. Now, just to make sure you don't brush this off yet again by telling me to re-read your earlier posts, I will re-post them and address them individually. This being the first one that caught my eye and made me wish for further explanation. There is no actual argument for something you say, just what you say (along with quote and sarcastic comment, as mentioned above.) Stating an opinion, nothing wrong with that, but once again you give no support for it. There is no more validity in saying that people take Flaws never expecting to deal with the consequences than there is in saying that people being level one Wizards never expect to tank. People have certain roles in mind when they create their characters. Flaws simply help them customize and specialize a bit more than the lack of them would. Where? Be a good sport and point it out, because as of my fifth reading of these same lines, I am nigh certain that it is not there. I wasn't "going the arrogant route" – you're getting too wrapped up in this, holmes, let it go.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 11:40 AM	I wasn't "going the arrogant route" – you're getting too wrapped up in this, holmes, let it go. It's a hard thing to do when you brush off every coherent argument made against your case with that lightly veiled sense of superiority. You assert that you did something you did not, and when proved wrong, you ignore it. And yes, it's true that you don't have to respond, aside from the rules of polite society dictating that one should answer a question when asked. In the cynical times we live in this means little. But honestly then, what is the point? If you make a post and somebody points out a flaw in it, it would be beneficial to learn from it. That is how one grows as a person. What is it you gain from making a baseless assertion and then not asserting it? I'm not trying to be rude if any of this is coming out in that way, but as a psych major I'm curious about the works of the human mind, and what you're doing is utterly astonishing to me. I can think of no precedent for the motivation behind your actions.
Epicweaver 02-27-07, 11:42 AM	I'm finished... This thread is a hair from getting locked anyways. Good day to you guys.
Zumarai 02-27-07, 11:48 AM	It's a hard thing to do when you brush off every coherent argument made against your case with that lightly veiled sense of superiority. You assert that you did something you did not, and when proved wrong, you ignore it. And yes, it's true that you don't have to respond, aside from the rules of polite society dictating that one should answer a question when asked. In the cynical times we live in this means little. But honestly then, what is the point? If you make a post and somebody points out a flaw in it, it would be beneficial to learn from it. That is how one grows as a person. What is it you gain from making a baseless assertion and then not asserting it? I'm not trying to be rude if any of this is coming out in that way, but as a psych major I'm curious about the works of the human mind, and what you're doing is utterly astonishing to me. I can think of no precedent for the motivation behind your actions. When did you prove anybody wrong? To me it just seems that you want to argue/debate because I don’t agree with you on your opinion/view of Flaws. I'm not trying to be superior, and I apologize if I came off that way. I just have seen too many times how these sorts of difference of opinions degenerate. I'm just trying to say lets agree to disagree on our views of Flaws and how people implement/justify them. Take care, and beware of devious midgets.
Evil DM Mk3 02-27-07, 11:55 AM	To answer the question, so long as they are used as itnended in the spirit of their conception and not as a munchkin tool that the DM forgets to tweak 25 point buy+flaws is equivelant to 25 point buy. That is how it is ment to be, that is how it has panned out in every game I run them in, because I am careful with them. True characters with them seem to have higher high points, but they have well exploited lower low points. -3 on reflex hurts on both rogues and fighters, don't let people convince you otherwise.
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 11:57 AM	When did you prove anybody wrong? When I pointed out the numerous holes in your argument and you refused to address them. To me it just seems that you want to argue/debate because I don’t agree with you on your opinion/view of Flaws. No, I wanted to point out a logical paradox. I don't like arguments, but I enjoy intellectual discussions about the game we all play. I was expecting a back and forth between you and I that would result in us both better understanding the others' position, as with most discussions I have. But there was no back and forth. You asserted something, I questioned how it was different from similar aspects of character generation. You asserted it again, to which I posed the same question. At this point, you stopped discussing, and merely pointed me to the assertions you already made. Maybe you hold a piece of knowledge. Maybe you have a reason to believe Flaws were a "cheesy" way to get more Feats. All I wanted was to know why you thought that, and if there was no Flaw in why you thought that, it would have been the end of that conversation. I'm not trying to be superior, and I apologize if I came off that way. I just have seen too many times how these sorts of difference of opinions degenerate. I'm just trying to say lets agree to disagree on our views of Flaws and how people implement/justify them. Take care, and beware of devious midgets. Agreed. Farewell and happy gaming.
Cantankerous 02-27-07, 12:07 PM	Guys, please, take the urination contest into IMs and let the thread be a thread. It's a good topic that doesn't deserve to get shut down so that you two can erect your pulpits out in the open. Weaver, do us a favor and stick around, if the thread doesn't get locked. It's got the potential to be one of the better topics on the board presently. Isshia
KurenaiYami 02-27-07, 12:12 PM	Guys, please, take the urination contest into IMs and let the thread be a thread. It's a good topic that doesn't deserve to get shut down so that you two can erect your pulpits out in the open. I'm sure if I understood that I'd be offended, but you're a little late to the party, we said our farewells already. No need to get insulting, though I do apologize for the massive derail.
MrCelsius 02-28-07, 03:47 AM	Jeez, I go away for a day and someone poops in my thread. Epicweaver, I'm with Cantankerous; you were contributing intelligently and helpfully, and I'd love it if you stuck around.
Cantankerous 02-28-07, 09:03 AM	Jeez, I go away for a day and someone poops in my thread. Epicweaver, I'm with Cantankerous; you were contributing intelligently and helpfully, and I'd love it if you stuck around. Alright, so back at it then. Proviso: I think it's closer to the amount of suppliments allowed squared and then multiplied by about -0.5 if they are part of the Complete Series, which seems tailor made for them. So, one or two of them (books of the Complete series) don't matter too much, but if three get involved it's time and a half total power and all four doubles their value. THAT said, even with all four Complete's thrown in, I'd see no problem with them as long as the DM keeps in mind the value that they might have individually in his own campaign. "Non-combatant" for a low strength Wizard and "murky eyed" for a melee monster have a disproportionate value compared to the rest I find. Any thoughts? Isshia
trapspringer 02-28-07, 12:41 PM	I agree that the relative power of flaws increases with the number of options available, but so does the power of increased ability scores (because you suddenly meet more pre-reqs and you are more likely to find a series of feats/classes/items/crap with MAD). Its a crap shoot. Flaws don't really add that much power, just versatility (which, admittedly, is a kind of power in a group of four, but the individual is no stronger, thus balance is maintained).
Epicweaver 02-28-07, 01:02 PM	I'm still watching. I'm enjoying the "larger available feats makes flaws more powerful" discussion. I agree with it, as most of the community probably does. I don't have much more to comment other then what I've already said at this moment, but time will tell if there's more heated discussion to come.
MrCelsius 02-28-07, 05:35 PM	I've been keeping my role mostly to an inquisitive capacity thus far, but I'll give my perspective now. I love flaws. Those two extra feats really help flesh out a character's abilities early on. If there's one thing I hate, it's that expanse between levels one and three (or six!) when a character is waiting for zir build to become viable. I know, I know, they should tough it out. I prefer not to go through that, or put my players through that. So getting a jump start on a set of feats that allow for particular tactics is great. Feels a lot more heroic. Anyway, I suppose the question of balance is arguably moot, since anything I give players I also usually give NPCs. NPCs specialize a lot more than players do, thus increasing the chance that they'll avoid their situational flaws, and virtually guaranteeing that they'll make use of the feats gained. Still, I suppose I won't be taking the time to pick flaws and feats for generic orcish warriors, so it'd only really be balanced in such fashion against BBEGs and other named foes. Hmm.