Thanks for any replies
I usually let people have 2 "traits" and 1 "flaw", as it lets people get that feat they so much crave, while still not giving 2. If they really want to "flesh out their character" they can continue with traits.
Loredrake Kobold with feats? Not cool. Getting your exotic weapon proficiency early enough to start out with the weapon you want? Fun.
Cheesy? Depends on what the 'free' feats the character choses... 2 extra toughnesses are not gonna do much more than help a player make it to level 2. Its kinda hard to use those feats for things that are really cheesy unless you use feats that are cheesy.
Loredrake Kobold with feats? Not cool. Getting your exotic weapon proficiency early enough to start out with the weapon you want? Fun.
+1
1 flaw = 1 feat
if you want 2 feats, then it's 3 flaws.
(as most above, it shows that while not being completely cheesy, it's quite powerfull).
They're not balanced. Not even close. Even casual handpicking of flaws / feats will give a character a significant boost in overall power. So yeah, they're crazy strong - and stronger the more you allow.
On the other hand - that's not much of an issue. Player characters don't necessarily need to be balanced against anything other than the other PCs. The DM can always adjust stuff for higher-powered characters.
I really like flaws because they're one of the strongest and simplest ways to give the players significantly stronger characters from the start - and it pulls this off better than higher stats or free LA because it gives them OPTIONS. This tends to make players happy (exceptions exist).
The only real caveat I have with flaws isn't so much a warning about flaws as it is about playing a game with high-powered chars; The DM needs to be capable of responsibly handling them. Heck, though, that's just as true of weak characters. Meh. Whatever.
They're a houserule anyways, just a common one. The worthless flaw issue is supposed to be resolved by DM veto. A lich with meager fortitude is not gonna fly since they're probably not making any fortitude saves ever. That's where DM judgment is supposed to come in and make the system actually work fairly.
If you're going to allow flaws, it seems silly to limit them like this. It makes sense that a character that sees a lot of fighting is going to try to make choices that either lessen their weaknesses (like a sickly individual turning himself into a lich) or lets them focus on their strengths (like a poor archer instead focusing on his swordfighting skills).
Personally, I don't like them, but given that there are quite a few magic items which grant extra feats anyway, flaws don't seem like they'd be too overpowering.
If you're going to allow flaws, it seems silly to limit them like this. It makes sense that a character that sees a lot of fighting is going to try to make choices that either lessen their weaknesses (like a sickly individual turning himself into a lich) or lets them focus on their strengths (like a poor archer instead focusing on his swordfighting skills).
Well, although you have a point (roleplaying-wise), I wouldn't allow a character to take a flaw that don't affect them at all. On the same hand, i would not allow a Lich to take willying deformity and then the next feat granting +2 dex and -2 con (even though as a Lich thats probably a bad way to spend feats ;) ).
However, I would allow a character to take the meager fortitude flaw at character creation, say level one, or five for example. Then roleplay wise, it makes a lot of sense for that character to one day decide he wants to become a lich because he's always sick and everything. I'd allow that one, and he'll have suffered his flaw a little bit anyways.
i'm still on the fence with this one though, honestly.
Its considered cheesy because players tend to handpick flaws which do not affect them(A melee focused character getting Shaky, a spellcaster getting non-combatant, etc). It ends up marginally affecting a character for feats, essentially "free" feats.
That is the entire point behind flaws, I believe. A guy who is utterly unable to learn archery probably shouldn't try to kill dozens of monsters with a bow, right?
Why is this here?
*rimshot*
anyway, the problem i've encountered using flaws (and i have many times as a DM allowed them), is that it all depends on if you use point-buy, or if you roll stats. The pathetic flaw isn't very pathetic when your lowest stat is a 13, and you also rolled a 17 and a few 15s. I also require that the flaw be at least somewhat characterful and represented. I've given circumstantial penalties to certain skills before. (Made a shaky character take a -2 on a balance check, cause it just makes F-ing sense)
JaronK
*rimshot*
Because us optimizers are the only ones awesome enough to talk to (except, me I'm not that awesome :P)
My last game allowed a virtually unlimited number of flaws. Most characters had around four or five. Mine had the most at seven. Party was an ubercharger / dungeoncrasher (me), a words of creation bard / sublime chord, a hyperbuffer archivist, a chaingun thrower rogue, and a fonts-o-freaking-inspiration factotum / chameleon. Everyone in the party was quite high-powered, but we were a long way from retarded strength. The game was in no way unplayable whatsoever.
You know its funny you say that... I have heard of people doing exactly that and I thought it would be fun. I followed down that road to start into my 'way more than uber charger' build in my build compendium (check the sig above)
Tier 1 classes don't get them ; but Fighters do.
Problem ... all this does is stave off the inevitable.
Take a weird class like Wilder, and give it 2 flaws.
Human + level 1 + flaws feats into the psi-bonus powerpoint feat.
A simple build, and gets about ~34 pp with Wild Surging every time.
If you use Vigor as the 1 power, you're talking about 170 hit points at level 1.
Not bad, as you suck at everything else at level 1. And you suck later too.