Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Jtkiefer 09-08-06, 02:57 AM	NOTE: I am not currently running a campaign but I am in the preliminary stages of working for one for future use. Ok here's the deal, in the group of players that I play with there is one person, lets just call him Phil who abuses the nature of the character flaw system to give himself a ridiculous edge while only taking flaws that have absolutely no effect on his class, unfortunately I can't remember exactly what class he was last campaign, but anyway the previous and current DM's have taken care of this by banning globally the use of flaws, is there a better way to work flaws into the roleplaying of the campaign but still limit it to reason.
KurenaiYami 09-08-06, 03:03 AM	Use whatever his flaws make him suck at. Did he take shaky and murky-eyed, but is a melee fighter? Make him fight in shadowy illumination so he misses half the time, or have a flying wizard that he can't hit with his bow, because now he sucks at shooting.
Jtkiefer 09-08-06, 03:14 AM	the issue with that is that if I tailored the campaign to where he sucks at (and this is of course assuming that he'll take flaws as he's done in pretty much every campaign we've done so far) then everyone else is gonna be miserable, especially if I play real hardball and make them defend him every minute or have him be destroyed.
Karn_Maradis 09-08-06, 03:19 AM	From a human perspective it's logical that you use what you're good at. Why shoot a bow if you have bad eyesight? That being said I find the flaws too powerful. It's always a bonus feat you use a lot vs some bad ability you ignore as much as possible.
Dhaise 09-08-06, 03:33 AM	Ask him not to do it or don't invite him.
Andrew 09-08-06, 03:38 AM	Require three or more flaws for every bonus feat. I'm not kidding. Power players will still take them.
Shaggy_Shaggs 09-08-06, 03:46 AM	Require three or more flaws for every bonus feat. I'm not kidding. Power players will still take them. "Power players" that don't know what they're doing, maybe, or roleplayers who have a concept in mind of a character who has devoted his whole life and identity to doing one thing well, to the exclusion of all other capabilities. (Do not take this to indicate a mutual exclusion of being a powergamer or a roleplayer. It's merely a grasp at reasons somebody would do something so overall detrimental to character strength. Six flaws for two feats isn't worth it overall, but if you're really concerned about one particular area you need feats for, or aren't concerned so much about overall power, go for it. One of my favorite characters to rp back in the day was a "powerplayed" character that was basically a caricature and overall quite crappy in the capability department... but don't get on the wrong end of his sword.) KurenaiYami's got the right idea. You don't have to tailor the entire campaign to picking on the guy that has flaws, but if you're not hitting the PCs below the belt at least some of the time, either you've got really multitalented PCs (:thumbsup: ), or you're not mixing it up enough. Everyone should shine sometimes, and the flip side of that is, everyone should suffer sometimes too.
Myrddin Wyllt 09-08-06, 04:12 AM	IMO the entire concept of character flaws is...well...flawed. :rolleyes: Any system that grants you benefits in exchange for flaws in other areas seems balanced on the surface, but almost all systems that allow this "on the fly" or on a player's-choice basis are subject to the abuse of those players. The only way I've ever seen a character flaw system work is when the flaws are just as bad as the compensations for those flaws are good...and to date, I have not read a system that does this. The one in the 3.5 version of Unearthed Arcana does a good job by limiting the flaws to two, and only at the time of character creation, except by DM fiat. From what you've already said, I assume you're not using the flaws/benefit system from Unearthed Arcana but from some other source (what? it would help me to offer suggestions if I can see what you're working with). In any system that makes you take three flaws to gain one benefit, the flaws are likely to be pretty cheesy/non-effectual, or else nobody would ever think they were worth taking just to get a feat, so I would STRONGLY suggest limiting such modifications to character creation only, and NEVER allow them after the character is in play. That would curtail the abuse, because a first level character with six flaws, no matter how lame, is pretty unlikely to survive a DM with any sense in his head...
Andrew 09-08-06, 04:19 AM	Everyone should shine sometimes, and the flip side of that is, everyone should suffer sometimes too. Good spirit, but really not a fair example. The problem is that what you get in exchange for each flaw will help you a majority of the time, and a flaw chosen to have the least impact will hurt you a minority of the time. Players that are really wanting to play something that is genuinely crippled will be looking for something more extreme than a that a minor nusiance, and it will have to always be handled by case-by-case arbitration, like someone wanting to play a blind monk or a one-armed swordsman. If flaws were worth it, every character would have flaws. Flaws are a crutch for the greedy.
Romtos 09-08-06, 07:36 AM	What is the sourcebook of this 'flaw' system? :)
Burgundy Lotus 09-08-06, 07:40 AM	Flaws are in Unearthed Arcana. I think the flaws are fairly well balanced, just make sure you throw in encounters that highlight the flaws, which you should be doing already.
X-Codes 09-08-06, 08:19 AM	Flaws are in Unearthed Arcana. I think the flaws are fairly well balanced, just make sure you throw in encounters that highlight the flaws, which you should be doing already. QFT Flaws give individual characters heightened vulnerability. Of course it's going to ramp up the power of a party that works well together. If the party fighter isn't good at archery at all, the cleric has a terrible reaction time, the rogue is scared of melee, and the wizard is the world's worst athlete, then the melee can be handled by the fighter while the rogue uses archery skills and the wizard some choice spells to fend the enemy off long enough for the cleric to pull his pants up. Then, after the battle, the rogue can also use a grappling hook to set up a rope or the fighter can pound pitons for handholds to make the climb up the cliff easier for the wizard. It's what they've always done anyway, except now they rather *have* to do it.
Pandaemoni 09-08-06, 08:25 AM	I hate the flaws system myself, but of course powergamers are going to select the flaws that are irrelevant to their class and the feats that are most beneficial (to the extent they meet the prerequisites, of course). That's the sort of power maximization that virtually defines powergaming. The design of the flaws system even assumes as much, offering penalties that are greater in absolute value than the bonuses a typical feat would give. I think the obvious solution, if it pains you to see powergaming of that sort, is to not use "flaws." At the very least limit their use (to no more than one bonus feat per character, for example). The other alternative is to require "final DM approval" of all selections and bounce anything that you think would be unbalancing. (Of course, many powergamers hate that sort of subjective standard, but subjective standards are part of life, so they can suck it up and deal with it.)
lears_fool 09-08-06, 08:29 AM	Honestly, there's very little real benefit in using flaws as a mechanic. . as they only get picked up by those looking for extra feats. .who will then naturally look for the tiniest disadvantage they can find. If you're worried about any problems, then simply don't allow them, they ARE optional.
runestar 09-08-06, 09:52 AM	I agree, the concept of flaws are well, flawed.:P Any enterprising player worth his salt will choose flaws whose drawbacks are more or less negligible regarding his character build. However, the feats he does choose will surely be those which benefit his character the most. The net result is 2 free feats at negligible/minimal cost. :( Perhaps you could consider rolling randomly to determine what flaws he should get, rather than letting him choose them himself? Or perhaps even step in and dictate what flaws he should be taking(naturally those which affect his build the most adversely;) )
Nytmare 09-08-06, 10:30 AM	If all you're looking for is RP fodder, you could use a benefit and flaw system that doesn't grant any kind of mechanical effect. Players in my campaign choose two traits in an attempt to describe the best and worst of their characters. The first is something that people who like them might describe them as (faithful, fearless, charming, or resourceful). The second is something that people who dislike them would see, or some kind of fatal flaw (stubborn, shortsighted, overbearing, or vain).
Solik 09-08-06, 10:52 AM	First: Don't be afraid of home-brewed flaws. The ones in UA are very general and, frankly, uninteresting. Players who want to use flaws should be required to work with the DM to invent flavorful flaws that really impact the game. I'm currently playing a dwarf who's afraid of water. I get all sorts of penalties if I go in or over water. It came into play already when a hydra jumped out at us in a swamp and nearly dragged my sister into the water (that would have been a disaster). The DM should be able to tell if a flaw is reasonable for the campaign. Second: Flaws can add a lot to characters. They're a great mechanical tool for aiding roleplay. Because I actually suffer real penalties in water, for instance, my roleplayed fear of water suddenly seems a lot more real to everyone involved. I actually am missing more in water. I actually do have to worry about becoming Panicked when involuntarily entering even shallow water. In other words, it makes the game further reflect the character concept, and that is a good thing. Third: Feats are not powerful. K already demonstrated in a thread a few weeks ago that a level 20 Fighter cannot defeat a Balor (CR 20) even if you give him every feat in the Player's Handbook and every fighter feat in all WotC splats. The most you have to worry about is players entering PrCs early, and most useful PrCs have much more than just a few feats required for entry.
Sereno 09-08-06, 11:03 AM	If all you're looking for is RP fodder, you could use a benefit and flaw system that doesn't grant any kind of mechanical effect. Players in my campaign choose two traits in an attempt to describe the best and worst of their characters. The first is something that people who like them might describe them as (faithful, fearless, charming, or resourceful). The second is something that people who dislike them would see, or some kind of fatal flaw (stubborn, shortsighted, overbearing, or vain). Wow! You've come up with the *first* "flaw" system I'd ever use in my game!! I hate, hate, hate the idea of taking an RP-based "flaw" to get a game-mechanics advantage. It's the munchkin-powergamer's dream-come-true ... something to write on my character sheet that will NEVER affect me in the game so I can get better combat bonuses! :rolleyes: What you've done is create a simple, and purely RP, system to give the DM and other players cues to RP against! Brilliant!
Solik 09-08-06, 11:09 AM	Er. That's not even a system. In fact, it's a reduction of characterization to two words. It shouldn't be necessary. PCs in a game with RP should have personalities that come right out. At best, it's an aid to newbies on how to begin defining their characters.
Millennium 09-08-06, 11:19 AM	If one of your players really abusing an optional, non-core system that badly, have you considered just not using that system? Honestly: you might want to consider not using flaws at all, at least at first. If you decide they're truly necessary then you can add them back later.
Kradlo 09-08-06, 11:24 AM	NOTE: I am not currently running a campaign but I am in the preliminary stages of working for one for future use. Ok here's the deal, in the group of players that I play with there is one person, lets just call him Phil who abuses the nature of the character flaw system to give himself a ridiculous edge while only taking flaws that have absolutely no effect on his class, unfortunately I can't remember exactly what class he was last campaign, but anyway the previous and current DM's have taken care of this by banning globally the use of flaws, is there a better way to work flaws into the roleplaying of the campaign but still limit it to reason. Personally, I like flaws for several reasons. They give a character a bit more depth and description. They are a bit of weakness that is balanced by a bit of strength. As a GM, it gives me a handle to use on the PCs. As a player, I enjoy this because I get more "face time." If the situation brings my flaw into focus, I'm in the spotlight as I face a disadvantage. Cool! So, by all means allow your powergamer to take flaws that he thinks won't affect him. Then put him into situations where they will. Surprise! If he raises any objections, remind him that flaws are meant to provide a disadvantage to the player in return for the bonus feat. If the flaw did not affect the character in game play, he got a free feat for nothing. TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. :D
Nytmare 09-08-06, 11:26 AM	Er. That's not even a system. In fact, it's a reduction of characterization to two words. You're right, I better have them tack a couple of extra feats onto their character sheets so that it's worthwhile. It isn't a reduction of characterization, it's an anchoring point. Furthermore, it's a signpost for the other characters (both player and non) who are interacting with the PC. Characters exist beyond those two words, just like they exist beyond their attributes and special abilities. It shouldn't be necessary. PCs in a game with RP should have personalities that come right out. At best, it's an aid to newbies on how to begin defining their characters. Man, you're right again. I should make my non-newbie players commit the rest of their character sheets to memory and throw it away so that they can start playing the game right.
Stumm_Dolch 09-08-06, 11:32 AM	Flaws should be randomly determined. If the Players wants to take advantage of the flaw system tell him to pick the benefit he wants and then roll his flaws randomly
Board_Rider 09-08-06, 11:33 AM	I love the flaw system. Sure, one can say that it adds PC depth and, to a point, it does. But honestly its used to gain feats. As a DM I do not have a problem with that. If Players want two extra feats by taking flaws then more power to them. My games are not Me vs. Them. I present a story that they can interact, change or ignore. Their mechanics are of little worry to me. I even allow traits...but those are hardly ever used. If you think flaws are an abused option disallow them. Another option is to assign a number to them and roll randomly. Some players may blanch when they see that rule come around.
claypigeons 09-08-06, 11:34 AM	I hate the flaws system myself, but of course powergamers are going to select the flaws that are irrelevant to their class and the feats that are most beneficial (to the extent they meet the prerequisites, of course). That's the sort of power maximization that virtually defines powergaming. So wait... only powergamers play their characters to their strength? So the 24 strength, 6 intelligence half-giant should be a wizard instead of a barbarian? You cannot seriously believe that only powergamers make mechanically strong characters...
Archangel62 09-08-06, 11:40 AM	I have played for quite some time and have yet to encounter any issue with flaws. My players like them and so do I, then again I also have systems in place to allow for training for additional feats.
Muspelheim 09-08-06, 11:43 AM	Flaws is a horrible, horrible system. All they do (unless players specifically pick something that will handicap them) is to give out extra feats, basically for nothing. If that's what you want, just house-rule more feats in and save yourself the trouble.
Morka 09-08-06, 12:10 PM	If you create home-brew flaws, feel free to limit some of them to some basic classes. For example: Arcane Performer In order to cast any spell, you must succeed at a Perform check (DC 10+spell level). If you fail, you lose the spell. You must be able to cast arcane spells without preparation, and have at least 1 rank in Perform to take this flaw. This feat should, naturally, be limited to characters with spellcasting ability. A rogue could easily take this flaw, and have absolutely no effect in game. But a bard would have some problems...
Solik 09-08-06, 12:10 PM	You're right, I better have them tack a couple of extra feats onto their character sheets so that it's worthwhile. Spare me. If your player is going to write on his sheet that he is "charming," then he better not have a charisma of 6. If your player is going to write on his sheet that he is "shortsighted," then he should probably have low-ish Wisdom (generally speaking). There is absolutely no reason that mechanics and roleplay shouldn't coincide and plenty of reasons that they shouldn't diverge. Furthermore, it's a signpost for the other characters (both player and non) who are interacting with the PC. Which is a potential problem. If my character's flaw is that he's selfish and scheming, but he's also intelligent, then people aren't going to be aware of that until it's too late. He's not going to wear a signpost that says "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M PLOTTING AGAINST YOU!" One example of many. I should make my non-newbie players commit the rest of their character sheets to memory and throw it away so that they can start playing the game right. If your players need two words on their character sheets to remind them how to play their characters, then I think you've got other issues to deal with. Besides, you're reading too much into what I said. I said it wasn't a system. It's not. I said that, in a game with RP, it shouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't. I didn't say you were playing the game wrong. All they do (unless players specifically pick something that will handicap them) is to give out extra feats, basically for nothing. Really? A flaw that reduces your HP by 1/level is no cost? A flaw that gives -3 on Fort saves is no cost? A flaw that gives -1 to AC is no cost? A flaw that gives -6 to Initiative is no cost? Yes, it's possible to very carefully choose your flaw in coordination with your other party members such that your penalty is mitigated by the strengths of other allies. Inattentive (-4 to Listen and Spot) may not be a big deal if you're relying on your allies for those checks. However, the RAW also states: 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. Thus, if the player attempts to take a flaw that does not impact them in any meaningful way, then the DM can, by RAW, override the taking of that flaw.
Muspelheim 09-08-06, 12:27 PM	A flaw that reduces your HP by 1/level is no cost? A flaw that gives -3 on Fort saves is no cost? A flaw that gives -1 to AC is no cost? A flaw that gives -6 to Initiative is no cost? Yes, it's possible to very carefully choose your flaw in coordination with your other party members such that your penalty is mitigated by the strengths of other allies. Inattentive (-4 to Listen and Spot) may not be a big deal if you're relying on your allies for those checks. However, the RAW also states: 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. Thus, if the player attempts to take a flaw that does not impact them in any meaningful way, then the DM can, by RAW, override the taking of that flaw. Actually, the quoted srd passage is used to give advice about how to go about creating *new* flaws, not to adjucate the existing ones. Also, the DM already has the 'right' to exclude feats, house-rule them etc. That you can house-rule a bad system into something more workable is hardly surprising. My opinion is that the system as written is a bad one, and basically amounts to giving players a couple of bonus feats, which is fine if that's what you want, I just see little reason in using the system for that. If it's for the RP ramifications, you could just as well type out a more complete and interesting list of flaws (with no bearing on the game-mechanics) and have your players choose a number from it. As far as the first part of the post is concerned, then sure, some of the flaws actually *are* quite significant - the thing is, however, that there's absolutely no incentive for choosing them when you can choose stuff like murky-eyed, non-combatant and shaky.
Sereno 09-08-06, 12:36 PM	Er. That's not even a system. In fact, it's a reduction of characterization to two words. It shouldn't be necessary. PCs in a game with RP should have personalities that come right out. At best, it's an aid to newbies on how to begin defining their characters. I don't think Nytmare's "system" is *reducing* characterization to two words, I think it's give two words as the place to start. Players should still be developing a full and complete personality. It's more like a "first impression" ... it can take years to get to know someone, or you can think that they're a jerk from the first moment you meet them. Most DnD RP doesn't last long enough to get to the "really getting to know you" stage. PCs are going to develop their personalities amonst each other as they go ... in NPC interaction, it's going to happen fast and first impressions are going to be more important than any amount of backstory you've written up to develop a good complete personality.
PhaedrusXY 09-08-06, 12:39 PM	This is a problem with the Flaw system, not how your player is using them. If you like the flavor but don't want to deal with the abusiveness, use Character Traits (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm) instead. The benefits from those are much more minor, but you can get a similiar roleplay flavor from them.
UncleAthanas 09-08-06, 12:42 PM	NOTE: I am not currently running a campaign but I am in the preliminary stages of working for one for future use. Ok here's the deal, in the group of players that I play with there is one person, lets just call him Phil who abuses the nature of the character flaw system to give himself a ridiculous edge while only taking flaws that have absolutely no effect on his class, unfortunately I can't remember exactly what class he was last campaign, but anyway the previous and current DM's have taken care of this by banning globally the use of flaws, is there a better way to work flaws into the roleplaying of the campaign but still limit it to reason. If a flaw is not going to constitute a genuine flaw for his character concept you dont have to approve it. Some flaws require the DM to stay a little more busy and diligent. If a character never suffers because of his flaw, then either you are not on top of things or the flaw does not apply to his character concept.
spectralphoenix 09-08-06, 12:56 PM	Oberoni Fallacy: The existance of a rule saying 'the rules can be changed' can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Just because you can decide to disallow players from taking flaws you feel are too minor doesn't mean the system works.
Nytmare 09-08-06, 01:14 PM	If your player is going to write on his sheet that he is "charming," then he better not have a charisma of 6. If your player is going to write on his sheet that he is "shortsighted," then he should probably have low-ish Wisdom (generally speaking). There is absolutely no reason that mechanics and roleplay shouldn't coincide and plenty of reasons that they shouldn't diverge. I never said that they shouldn't coincide, I said that if the person with the problem wanted his players to choose flaws because they added to the character's character instead of the character's abilities, that he could easily axe the ability end of things and keep the personality traits. I'm wondering where you picked up that I said that the descriptions should blatantly ignore the existing mechanics. Maybe you got confused when I said that they should "describe the best and worst of their character" and that they don't "grant any kind of mechanical effect." I can see how that could have thrown you. Which is a potential problem. If my character's flaw is that he's selfish and scheming, but he's also intelligent, then people aren't going to be aware of that until it's too late. He's not going to wear a signpost that says "HEY LOOK AT ME! I'M PLOTTING AGAINST YOU!" One example of many. If one of my players chose selfish or scheming as the negative personality trait that people would describe him as, then no, people would be aware of it. That was kind of the point. I wasn't asking for a secret character flaw that nobody knows about, I was asking for a blatant one that everyone sees. We're not playing in a void and it's not a black and white rules system; it's an aid that supports role playing. If your players need two words on their character sheets to remind them how to play their characters, then I think you've got other issues to deal with. Other issues like sometimes playing once every other month? Other issues like not having the mental faculties necessary to remember character's names from game to game, let alone whether Bob's new character is the trustworthy but flighty guy or the perceptive jerk? Besides, you're reading too much into what I said. I said it wasn't a system. It's not. I said that, in a game with RP, it shouldn't be necessary. It shouldn't. I didn't say you were playing the game wrong. Which definition of system (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=system) are you pushing for? Is it because I'm having players make a character choice that doesn't filter directly into a plus or minus to a skill check? You're saying that in a real game with real role playing, things that help people role play are extraneuous crutches. You're right, you never said I was playing the game wrong. You did however say that my players and I were either inexperienced newbies or woefully deficient because we have two extra words written on our character sheets to help us enforce the roleplaying that we do when we game. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.
Solik 09-08-06, 01:55 PM	Actually, the quoted srd passage is used to give advice about how to go about creating *new* flaws, not to adjucate the existing ones. There is no reason not to use that passage to adjucate existing flaws. Moreover, as the entire thing is a variant, and there are a very small handful of flaws offered, it is easy to think of them as examples. I already suggested that people who want to use the flaw system should invent home-brewed flaws. If it's for the RP ramifications, you could just as well type out a more complete and interesting list of flaws (with no bearing on the game-mechanics) and have your players choose a number from it. I'm having a lot more fun with my dwarf's fear of water because that fear actually creates problems for me in gameplay. I really can't see why I need to say more than that. The feat compensation keeps me from needlessly gimping my character, which would annoy my fellow players, who depend at least partially on me for their survival. Oberoni Fallacy: The existance of a rule saying 'the rules can be changed' can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. This has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand. First, the existance of a broken feat does not render the entire feat system useless. Second, we are discussing a variant and ways to use that variant, not arguing whether the entirety of the "flaws" section of the book is perfect as-written. From the beginning I offered ideas of how to use the "system" of flaws together with house rules. That makes this an argument about -- house rules. Please try not to misuse fallacies. It's also interesting to note that no one has responded to the argument about feats not actually being powerful themselves. I never said that they shouldn't coincide, I said that if the person with the problem wanted his players to choose flaws because they added to the character's character instead of the character's abilities, that he could easily axe the ability end of things and keep the personality traits. Look, the "flaws" that you mention aren't remotely the same as the flaws being discussed here. Coming off as "stubborn" to people who don't like you is not remotely on the same level as "having a chronic illness that has resulted in an overall weakened physique." It's just not the same topic.
Muspelheim 09-08-06, 02:28 PM	I'm having a lot more fun with my dwarf's fear of water because that fear actually creates problems for me in gameplay. I really can't see why I need to say more than that. The feat compensation keeps me from needlessly gimping my character, which would annoy my fellow players, who depend at least partially on me for their survival. Unless you are playing in a somewhat naval-based campaign, fear of water is hardly worth a feat. In many campaigns you might not even be near water at any time, hence it might in effect be a free feat. However, the if you are actually playing a campaign where the flaw matters (which it sounds like), then sure it might be 'gimpiness' worth a feat; even so, the point still stands - you most likely have to *intentionally* pick a flaw that will affect you. So yeah, you can make the system work (and be interesting, most likely) by consensus among the players and DM concerning how to go about picking flaws or by an explicit houserule. It doesn't change the fact that the system as written doesn't support this, in my opinion. It's also interesting to note that no one has responded to the argument about feats not actually being powerful themselves. Very well, I'll have a go at it then :) Feats are not powerful. K already demonstrated in a thread a few weeks ago that a level 20 Fighter cannot defeat a Balor (CR 20) even if you give him every feat in the Player's Handbook and every fighter feat in all WotC splats. The most you have to worry about is players entering PrCs early, and most useful PrCs have much more than just a few feats required for entry. It's certainly true that most feats aren't *that* powerful compared to certain spells, class abilities etc. It's certainly true as well that a character like a fighter might run out of useful feats to take eventually (even though this can be said to have been somewhat remedied by certain splat books). Even so, there are plenty of characters who are really feat-starved and for whom 2 feats could be a very nice boost, like clerics (especially the divine metamagic variant) and druids. So while feats generally pale in comparison to a lot of other stuff, they are still highly useful in a lot of builds and can provide a good deal of additional power.
OGS-Remix 09-08-06, 02:35 PM	Third: Feats are not powerful. K already demonstrated in a thread a few weeks ago that a level 20 Fighter cannot defeat a Balor (CR 20) even if you give him every feat in the Player's Handbook and every fighter feat in all WotC splats. The most you have to worry about is players entering PrCs early, and most useful PrCs have much more than just a few feats required for entry. Do you have a link to that thread? I'd just like to see the line of thought as to why a Fighter could not defeat a Balor even with all the books included.
MageWeasel 09-08-06, 02:49 PM	I discourage my players from taking flaws, but also understand the plight of the player who says "dang, if only I had that one last feat!" So I allow them to take ONE flaw, but I also ruled that it actually has to be a FLAW for thier character, and most of the flaws in UA are eather not bad enough, or to over the top. Before the campaign begins, they are required to submit their flaw for approval. Most of the time I'm more inclined to agree to a flaw that has more than one game effect. Example: A dwarven scout with one eye. -2 ranged attacks, -2 spot checks, -2 AC when flanked. The pc used a bow about half the time, had his spot as high as he could get it with the penalty, and when in melee combat had the extra consideration of trying to avoid being flanked (easier said than done). This flaw wouldn't have worked so well with a spellcaster, or with a front line fighter, the latter example being the only thing he would have worried about is the flanking penalty which, IMO isn't bad enough.
Solik 09-08-06, 02:58 PM	However, the if you are actually playing a campaign where the flaw matters (which it sounds like), then sure it might be 'gimpiness' worth a feat; even so, the point still stands - you most likely have to *intentionally* pick a flaw that will affect you. So yeah, you can make the system work (and be interesting, most likely) by consensus among the players and DM concerning how to go about picking flaws or by an explicit houserule. It doesn't change the fact that the system as written doesn't support this, in my opinion. *shrug* That's exactly what the RAW directs in the paragraph I quoted. The example flaws don't necessarily support that, but that's because they had to try to make them for generic campaigns. Not an easy thing to do. It's much easier to develop flaws together with the DM. Do you have a link to that thread? I'd just like to see the line of thought as to why a Fighter could not defeat a Balor even with all the books included. Can't remember which it is. There were at least two, maybe three, threads running about Fighters a few weeks ago. One of them was started by K, and it was titled "Playing the Same Game." Another was started by another poster, who wanted to fix fighters by giving them a feat every level instead of every other level. Still, the logic's not hard to replicate; the balor summons another balor on its first turn. One of them juggles him with blasphemy and the other either beats him to death or uses implosion until he fails his save. The most tricked-out charge damage fighter is not likely to fell the balor before it gets to move. If you check out the full thread, though, it's quite interesting; it explores how, especially in upper-levels, feats do really nothing at all. Not just against the balor, but against most challenges. This was conceded by WotC with Tome of Battle, which replaced feat-based fighters with a spell-like system for melee combatants.
lears_fool 09-08-06, 03:13 PM	I don't like the flaws 'as written' because they're set up much like feats, and encourage quite a bit of cherry picking from the player, as that's the natural interpretation. Now, if a character wants to take a flaw for a bonus feat in some way, that's still workable, but they have to explain their character concept, and we'll come up with an exchange together. . and it'll be very well balanced (especially since I control the world!). The flaw may impact other parts of gameplay. . though generally if someone wants to take a combat feat I make sure the flaw applies to combat. And if a character has a brilliant design where their RP character has inherent flaws (peg leg, one eye, short temper) I'm more than happy to incorporate that into the game as well as come up with a perk or two for the player. But as a rule, I never, ever would consider allowing free access to the flaw system
Nytmare 09-08-06, 03:18 PM	Look, the "flaws" that you mention aren't remotely the same as the flaws being discussed here. Coming off as "stubborn" to people who don't like you is not remotely on the same level as "having a chronic illness that has resulted in an overall weakened physique." It's just not the same topic. ...is there a better way to work flaws into the roleplaying of the campaign but still limit it to reason. So the divine weaponsmith with the 7 constitution who chooses "sickly" as his negative trait is handicapped as a role player, as opposed to the dwarf who took "hydrophobic" as a flaw because the player is afraid to go swimming. The sickly player, reminded by the negative trait listed at the top of his character sheet, carries around a good luck charm to ward off illness, decided not to climb a staircase to explore the upper reaches of a church because it would tire him out, and argued against leaving the comfort of a friend's keep to ambush enemies because it was miserable outside and he didn't want to stand around outside in the rain and probably catch a cold. The stubborn character doesn't just "come off as stubborn". They ARE stubborn. They're obstinate and difficult to sway from a set course of action, hopefully even after the player thinks that the character is being a half a jerk. Jtkiefer asked for a better way to work flaws into his game, I offered one. And mine doesn't involve playing a one legged assassin who is afraid of being locked in a dark closet full of spiders with a cleric of Pelor while being suspended out the 13th story window of a blue building. Yay I get 9 extra feats!
Limousine_Liberal 09-08-06, 03:20 PM	Oberoni Fallacy: The existance of a rule saying 'the rules can be changed' can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Just because you can decide to disallow players from taking flaws you feel are too minor doesn't mean the system works. Flaws are optional rules to begin with. You choose to allow them in the first place, varying the core rules...excluding them is the default position.
UncleAthanas 09-08-06, 03:54 PM	Oberoni Fallacy: The existance of a rule saying 'the rules can be changed' can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Just because you can decide to disallow players from taking flaws you feel are too minor doesn't mean the system works. Look, no one complains more about the current system than me. But some rules are meant to be used judiciously. Flaws are an example of such rules. When a player selects a flaw, the DM should review it carefully and make sure it will actually have some impact on the character. Dms should also use caution when allowing players to take more than one flaw.
Andrew_980 09-08-06, 04:01 PM	My biggest problem is the guy that took 7 flaws, he was the worst munchkin i have ever played with and i will never forgive the DMs lazyness in not stopping his other freinds' cheating and rule abuse. As a DM i would allow 1 flaw only, as a RP thing with a benifit in trade but not a way to get free (or nearly so) feats.
Solik 09-08-06, 04:43 PM	Nytmare, I have no idea what you were trying to say with that post. I'll just assume you misunderstood me and move on. Multiple flaws is silly. We keep 'em to one, in general.
claypigeons 09-08-06, 05:15 PM	Crap He said... I thought you left?
SokenzanMarauder 09-08-06, 06:22 PM	I agree with Solik on this one. Allow at max one flaw per character. I've seen what some people do when they're given free reign (much like the OP's problem actually) and it gets out of hand quickly. However, if the player is only allowed one they actually have to think a bit. -Gene
DarkRhystar 09-08-06, 06:33 PM	Minor Point: The variant rule only allows a max of 2 flaws, not 7. Simple solution: DM picks the flaws.
Milandros 09-08-06, 06:56 PM	I think the OP has missed a couple of points in the flaws system. Unearthed Arcana is a completely optional set of rules variants that the DM can, if he wishes, allow to be used. It is not something a player comes in with and says that they're using, any more than gestalt characters are. If you don't want them, don't use them. Second, even if you use them, then each flaw must be approved by the DM. It states clearly that a flaw which is not a flaw - such as a wizard choosing a penalty to melee combat - is not a flaw and does not count. Only the DM can allow a flaw to allow an appropriate bonus. I have allowed one flaw in my game, for a character designed to be the architypal elven archer. The character ended up with a -2 on melee combat for a +1 on ranged. In the first session he lost his bow and ended up charging half a dozen zombies (level 1 character) with a longsword. In another session (level 4) he manages with brilliant archery to prevent a flying wizard from toasting half the group by readying actions to feather him every time he casts. Benefits gained; penalties taken; all of it was a great play experience, in both game mechanics terms and roleplay terms.
Tichrimo 09-08-06, 06:57 PM	I've used and abused flaws off and on in games... Sometimes it makes for some fun situations. (The hydrophobic PC and the necrophobic PC stuck in a rowboat with a half-dozen summoned zombies leaps to mind...)
Bob Loblaw 09-09-06, 11:42 AM	Minor Point: The variant rule only allows a max of 2 flaws, not 7. Simple solution: DM picks the flaws. Actually, the rule gives you 6 at 20th level. The description of how and when to take flaws refers you to the traits section which says that you can, with the DM's permission, take an additional one every 5th level. As for whether or not they are too powerful or broken, I haven't seen any real problems. However, my players, even the powergamers in the group, tend to roleplay their flaws fairly well. Something that the DM needs to keep in mind is (and I got this from Champions many years ago): A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't a disadvantage. If you don't suffer any penalties from the flaws, then you don't get any extras from them either.
Tisner44 09-09-06, 12:10 PM	Wow, this is a rough conversation:D Okay, the flaws system is not perfect (What in the D&D is?). It is also not the worst variant out there either. The system as descibed is flawed;) and can be easily abused if not controlled by the DM. If you don't like something, as the DM, you have the full right to change it. This thread is not whether or not the system works completely, but how would you alter it if at all....(this is an opinion, keep in mind). In my personal opinion I would look at the flaws and create a list of acceptable feats. I would probably use a lot of the feats that are not chosen often (skill based). Maybe use some of the more popular feats if the flaw is severe enough or just two of the not so popular ones. This is just my opinion...:D
Arco Versipellis 09-09-06, 12:25 PM	I used to have some issues with flaws, because all of my players were taking two each, but that was short lived. Why? Because I started requiring the characters be adaptable. One guy always took shaky and vulnerable, but then I started varying the ranges for the first round of combat more and since then shaky hasn't been back on the table. The one that drops listen/spot could be appealing to like a fighter, so I would use a lot of rogues and rangers. Rogues also work well if someone has taken unreactive which drops initiative. Pathetic (charisma) is the one I really haven't found a way to solve, except for joystealers from the MMIV are one of my favorite monsters, so players are becoming more leary of that one as well.
wonlee76 09-09-06, 02:10 PM	Flaws should be randomly determined. If the Players wants to take advantage of the flaw system tell him to pick the benefit he wants and then roll his flaws randomly I'm with you on this one Stumm. If you're going to use the flaws system at all, randomly determine what the flaw is at character creation. Unlike feats which are trained abilities/features, flaws seem more to do with upbringing/natural limitations. Poor eyesight, lack of depth perception, unathletic, etc. In real life, you don't get to "pick" what limitations you have in general. It just happens that you have poor eyesight, a bad back, etc. Of course feats can be selected after the PC finds out what flaws he gets since maybe he will do things to compensate his PC or build his PC around the flaws that are rolled up. *shrug* But that makes sense since people choose paths that are tailored to their strengths or will seek ways to minimize the disadvantages they are given in life.
Lonestar 09-09-06, 02:29 PM	Just tell him "You can't use flaws" You're the DM, what you say goes. He can't fight that. If flaw abuse is a problem, then don't allow flaws.
Solik 09-09-06, 04:39 PM	If you're going to use the flaws system at all, randomly determine what the flaw is at character creation. Unlike feats which are trained abilities/features, flaws seem more to do with upbringing/natural limitations. Poor eyesight, lack of depth perception, unathletic, etc. In real life, you don't get to "pick" what limitations you have in general. It just happens that you have poor eyesight, a bad back, etc. This is bad logic. Carrying this all the way, then the following things should be randomly determined: * Race * Height * Weight * Age * Appearance * Stats (roll down the list instead of roll and place) * Sorcerer spell list * Starting region * Character history Players control their PCs. That's all they should control. Do not take this away from them. There's no reason to be random with it; just get DM approval for every flaw choice. It's not like it's hard.
DarkRhystar 09-09-06, 07:53 PM	Actually, the rule gives you 6 at 20th level. The description of how and when to take flaws refers you to the traits section which says that you can, with the DM's permission, take an additional one every 5th level. Which is essentially a variant of their variant, however 2 is the default variant of the non-variant rules. Follow me? :) They create a variant for their variant in this statement: "After 1st level, a character cannot take on additional flaws unless the DM specifically allows it (for examples of times when doing this might be appropriate, see Character Traits, above)." More than 2 flaws requires house-ruling the house-rule. Of course, given that they wrote that section above for traits rather than flaws and then referenced it says they don't have a great grasp on how much more powerful a flaw/feat combo is compared to a trait... especially at high levels.
Halflingtoes 09-09-06, 09:29 PM	Can't remember which it is. There were at least two, maybe three, threads running about Fighters a few weeks ago. One of them was started by K, and it was titled "Playing the Same Game." Another was started by another poster, who wanted to fix fighters by giving them a feat every level instead of every other level. Still, the logic's not hard to replicate; the balor summons another balor on its first turn. One of them juggles him with blasphemy and the other either beats him to death or uses implosion until he fails his save. The most tricked-out charge damage fighter is not likely to fell the balor before it gets to move. If you check out the full thread, though, it's quite interesting; it explores how, especially in upper-levels, feats do really nothing at all. Not just against the balor, but against most challenges. This was conceded by WotC with Tome of Battle, which replaced feat-based fighters with a spell-like system for melee combatants. Was character wealth level included as well? the only way to defend against magic is with magic, and for a fighter, that means magic items. Just off the top of my head, creating a silence zone or deafing himself in some manor would prevent the sonic blasphemy spell, and armor with incorporeal or ehtereal ability and a ghost touch weapon would prevent implosion while still allowing him to attack, or most simply an antimagic field effect which would not only prevent those spells from taking effect, but would get rid of the summoned Balor as well. However saying feats are *useless* at high levels is a complete fallacy. Feats that allow characters, especially monks and rogues, to base nearly every important ability and skill off of one stat makes very powerful characters, Swordsages would not be nearly so dangerous if not for the Adaptive Style feat, Cull Wand Essence makes a Cure Critical Wounds wand a potent healing *and* offensive force, etc. As to flaws, I don't allow them. They are abused far more frequently than they are used as intended.
trapspringer 09-09-06, 09:31 PM	You don't even remember the guy's class? I mean, are you sure the flaw has no impact?
wonlee76 09-10-06, 11:17 PM	This is bad logic. Carrying this all the way, then the following things should be randomly determined: * Race * Height * Weight * Age * Appearance * Stats (roll down the list instead of roll and place) * Sorcerer spell list * Starting region * Character history Players control their PCs. That's all they should control. Do not take this away from them. There's no reason to be random with it; just get DM approval for every flaw choice. It's not like it's hard. Oddly enough, I've been in games where the DM chose to roll randomly for certain traits such as appearance (based on starting region) and certain limitations on character background (no being the Prince of the local Kingdom or anything like that). In other cases, the DM has even gone so far as to define who my PC's parents are (usually based on geography and my choice in character class). The PC "defined" character history starts around when they choose their first "class" and how they went about it. Stuff before that could be "fate" or luck of birth. I don't know how sorceror spell list should be chosen randomly since I don't think its all that random what sorcerors due. Natural talent maybe but not complete randomness.