Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 mynameisjake May 26, 2009 21:25:46	I need a flaw for a Gish build, but to be honest, all of them make me cringe. What is a recommended flaw, or two, that I won't regret taking? Or at least, regret less? MrJake
#2 agahii May 26, 2009 21:37:52	I like shaky if you plan to be more melee focused.
#3 jgumbyrx May 26, 2009 21:44:30	inattentive
#4 -ktkenshinx- May 26, 2009 21:53:01	Flaws are the most hideously broken thing in D&D. Trade something you will NEVER use for an important feat that you need as a requirement for a class, an ability, or general optimization madness. Flaws are absolutely unjustifiable in most situations, unless your DM is running a more powerful campaign. And don't get me started on the roleplaying value of flaws; you have a better chance of reviving 3.5 edition than consistently finding players who roleplay their flaws. That said, here are the ones you should look to: Inattentive: -4 Listen and Spot. You will never use these anyway, as someone else in your party can pick up the slack. Murky-Eyed: In combat, every time you attack an opponent that has concealment, roll your miss chance twice. If either or both results indicate that you miss, your attack fails. How often do you fight against enemies with concealment using an attack roll? In your position, probably most infrequently. Shaky: -2 to ranged attack rolls. If you are a melee combatant, this is gold. Vulnerable: -1 to AC Believe it or not, this is a very viable flaw for a lot of melee characters. Within a few levels, you won't even notice the AC penalty. If you are a particularly high HP class, or use magic to substantially buff your AC/Concealment/etc. then this is a viable option. -ktkenshinx
#5 hogarth May 26, 2009 22:19:58	--never mind--
#6 phaedrusxy May 27, 2009 0:21:06	I usually take Vulnerable, and something else. -1 AC is very minor.
#7 muertog May 27, 2009 2:10:03	Feeble is actually not that bad, especially if 1) you don't use those skills, 2) you have decent to good physical attributes already, and/or 3) you are a skillmonkey who are going to raise any affected skills anyways.
#8 acereraklives May 27, 2009 3:02:16	On my most recent character in a campaign, I took Murky-Eyed and Inattentive, as well as an 8 Wis and the Focused and Nearsighted traits, which reduced my spot and listen skills for a total of -7 and -6 to each skill. Then I convinced 1 of the other players to do the same. Then, since the DM is addicted to having the PCs roll useless Spot checks for crud that we need to see anyways for the story to advance ("A fifteen spot? Very nice...you see a wizard walking down the road towards you!"), my comrade and I separated from the other PC. After some flavor text, he asked us for the usual Spot check. "I rolled a fifteen...Spot check of nine!" "I got a -2!" "What???" It was pretty awesome. Anyhow, so far his flaws have ended up defining the character...I play him as a completely ADD evil enchanter, sort of like Xykon from Order of the Stick, who is totally powerful and evil but needs his minions and boss to constantly remind him what they're doing and why, as well as pointing out any dangers to the party that he is oblivious towards. ("Damn it Sky! The paladin is RIGHT THERE!")
#9 mynameisjake May 27, 2009 4:04:41	Sweet. MrJake
#10 Senevri May 27, 2009 5:00:27	Flaws are the most hideously broken thing in D&D. I snorted. Like a pig. They're not even the fifth most hideously broken thing in D&D. I wonder if they're even fifteenth. Trade something you will NEVER use for an important feat that you need as a requirement for a class, an ability, or general optimization madness. Well, if your DM doesn't EVER try to trip you with your flaws...
#11 dr_rocktopus May 27, 2009 13:24:21	I laugh and laugh and laugh when my players take murky-eyed or inattentive.
#12 pithica May 27, 2009 13:32:42	If your DM is even close to remotely as much of a bastard as me, definitely do not take murky-eyed. Concealment is one of the best defenses in the game, and the majority of my 'named' NPC's are going to use it, one way or another. I like Vulnerable, and Shaky (or Noncombatant) if you focus on one style over the other.
#13 pyro_azer May 27, 2009 14:14:10	Dragon has a bunch of flaws as well. Go to Surreals index and ctrl-f flaws and you willfind links to a couple of lists.
#14 pithica May 27, 2009 14:19:38	Oddly enough, outside of the 'joke' flaws, the ones in Dragon are often actually flaws. Methodical Magical Methods comes to mind.
#15 pyro_azer May 27, 2009 14:21:34	Oddly enough, outside of the 'joke' flaws, the ones in Dragon are often actually flaws. Methodical Magical Methods comes to mind. well the joke flaws require you to be a commoner. Thats enough of a flaw itself.
#16 pithica May 27, 2009 14:25:53	Not if I have infinite chickens it ain't.
#17 -ktkenshinx- May 27, 2009 14:57:24	I snorted. Like a pig. They're not even the fifth most hideously broken thing in D&D. I wonder if they're even fifteenth. Forgive my irrational hatred of flaws. They are certainly not the MOST broken thing in D&D, not even by a longshot. But when it comes to creating characters, they are obnixously broken in that they require no skill to implement or use. They just amount to free feats. Well, if your DM doesn't EVER try to trip you with your flaws... Murky-Eyed and Inattentive are certainly usable by a DM. Vulnerable and Shaky? Nope. Two free feats please. Noncombatant is similar, depending on what character you are playing. You get a baseline of feats at level 1 for a reason. Exceeding that baseline in this way feels like cheating (NOT TO IMPLY that other things in D&D don't feel like cheating, as many more feel like cheating even harder). -ktkenshinx-
#18 mynameisjake May 27, 2009 19:28:22	Surreals index ???????? MrJake
#19 dr_rocktopus May 27, 2009 19:33:08	Forgive my irrational hatred of flaws. They are certainly not the MOST broken thing in D&D, not even by a longshot. But when it comes to creating characters, they are obnixously broken in that they require no skill to implement or use. They just amount to free feats. -ktkenshinx- This, I understand and empathize with. I do try to keep the majority of my build flaw free for actual practical play, but for design, I find it interesting to see where the system goes when you stretch it and strain it.
#20 jgumbyrx May 27, 2009 19:35:19	This, I understand and empathize with. I do try to keep the majority of my build flaw free for actual practical play, but for design, I find it interesting to see where the system goes when you stretch it and strain it. the hell, you say
#21 dr_rocktopus May 27, 2009 19:42:27	To the hell, you say? Fixed.
#22 jgumbyrx May 27, 2009 19:48:50	Fixed. what was there to fix? i was just yanking your chain.
#23 pyro_azer May 27, 2009 20:29:31	???????? MrJake The top thread of the forum (sticky)
#24 mynameisjake May 27, 2009 20:32:51	Thanks. MrJake
#25 zenogu May 27, 2009 20:42:33	I laugh and laugh and laugh when my players take murky-eyed or inattentive. Exactly. Flaws come nowhere close. Heck, they're FLAWS; it's another way the DM gets to kick PCs in the shins.
#26 mynameisjake May 27, 2009 21:02:15	Are the flaws from Dragon OGL? Meaning, can I actually find them anywhere? Or do I have to chase down each individual magazine? MrJake
#27 jgumbyrx May 27, 2009 21:07:51	Are the flaws from Dragon OGL? Meaning, can I actually find them anywhere? Or do I have to chase down each individual magazine? MrJake I only know of having to get the individual magazines.
#28 pithica May 27, 2009 22:24:57	The Feat Index at Crystal Keep includes at least short descriptions of most of the dragon feats from issue ~290-325ish. There's also the DragonDex which is an index of their articles. Some of the feats from Dragon can likewise be found in the Pathfinder Beta They aren't OGL, though, as far as I know, at least not the 3.5 ones.