PDA

View Full Version : Flaws, how many of them do YOU take?



Darius Rae
2010-04-11, 09:16 PM
While building my character I am confronted with the usual problem of not having enough feats. The obvious choices for more feats are, be human, be a fighter, or take more flaws.

Because the concept of my character is an Elf Skirmisher, human and fighter are out. So my question is, how many flaws do people tend to put on their characters? UA suggests 2, but I think I recall seeing builds with more. Do you impose some limitation on how many you can take? Maybe you can only take flaws that work for the character concept and no more?

Edit: also, what dragon mag issue can I find the "nature lover" flaw?

Ranos
2010-04-11, 09:19 PM
It's not a suggestion, actually. "A player may select up to two flaws when creating a character", it's pretty straightforward.

Dusk Eclipse
2010-04-11, 09:19 PM
Normally my group doesn't use flaws, but when we do I only take one and one that significanly affects my character.

jokey665
2010-04-11, 09:21 PM
As many as I'm allowed, generally. So two, most of the time.

Myou
2010-04-11, 09:27 PM
None, they're stupid, they don't give meaningful penalties so you may as well hand out free feats.

sofawall
2010-04-11, 09:30 PM
I almost always take 2. Rarely I take 1. I always take at least 1.

Also, this thread reminded me I need to subtract two from the melee attack of my Bard.

Melayl
2010-04-11, 09:32 PM
None, they're stupid, they don't give meaningful penalties so you may as well hand out free feats.

Really? A lot of them seem to have meaningful penalties to me...

FLAW DESCRIPTIONS
Each of the flaws described here has a specific game effect. Some flaws can only be taken by a character who meets a special requirement.

Feeble
You are unathletic and uncoordinated.
Effect: You take a -2 penalty on Strength-, Dexterity-, and Constitution-based ability checks and skill checks.

Frail
You are thin and weak of frame.
Effect: Subtract 1 from the number of hit points you gain at each level. This flaw can reduce the number of hit points you gain to 0 (but not below).

Special: You must have a Constitution of 4 or higher to take this flaw.

Inattentive
You are particularly unaware of your surroundings.
Effect: You take a -4 penalty on Listen checks and Spot checks.

Meager Fortitude
You are sickly and weak of stomach.
Effect: You take a -3 penalty on Fortitude saves.

Murky-Eyed
Your vision is obscured.
Effect: 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.

Noncombatant
You are relatively inept at melee combat.
Effect: You take a -2 penalty on all melee attack rolls.

Pathetic
You are weaker in an attribute than you should be.
Effect: Reduce one of your ability scores by 2.

Special: You cannot take this flaw if the total of your ability modifiers is 8 or higher.

Poor Reflexes
You often zig when you should have zagged.
Effect: You take a -3 penalty on Reflex saves.

Shaky
You are relatively poor at ranged combat.
Effect: You take a -2 penalty on all ranged attack rolls.

Slow
You move exceptionally slowly.
Effect: Your base land speed is halved (round down to the nearest 5-foot interval).

Special: You must have a base land speed of at least 20 feet to take this flaw.

Unreactive
You are slow to react to danger.
Effect: You take a -6 penalty on initiative checks.

Vulnerable
You are not good at defending yourself.
Effect: You take a -1 penalty to Armor Class.

Weak Will
You are highly suggestible and easily duped.
Effect: You take a -3 penalty on Will saves.


I mean, permanent penalties to saves, fewer HP, attack penalties, AC penalties, movement penalties, ability score penalties... What exactly is a "meaningful penalty" if not those?

Myou
2010-04-11, 09:37 PM
Really? A lot of them seem to have meaningful penalties to me...


I mean, permanent penalties to saves, fewer HP, attack penalties, AC penalties, movement penalties, ability score penalties... What exactly is a "meaningful penalty" if not those?

You pick the ones you want. So you pick the ones that don't hurt your class. :smallsigh:

sofawall
2010-04-11, 09:38 PM
Really? A lot of them seem to have meaningful penalties to me...


I mean, permanent penalties to saves, fewer HP, attack penalties, AC penalties, movement penalties, ability score penalties... What exactly is a "meaningful penalty" if not those?

Shaky/Noncombatant: How often do you see someone using both styles? Pick the other one.

Vulnerable: 1 AC is not a big thing.

Inattentive: If you aren't getting ranks anyway, why not?

Murky-eyed: Anything based on Precision Damage might as well take this, seeing as how they won't be doing much anyway.

As Joe Chaos recommends, don't pick a penalty that will actually effect you.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-11, 09:42 PM
Pathetic: This flaw would seriously hurt a monk and maybe a paladin. Wizard? Not so much.

Melayl
2010-04-11, 09:43 PM
You pick the ones you want. So you pick the ones that don't hurt your class. :smallsigh:

I guess I'm not much of a powergamer. I didn't consider that aspect. :smallredface: I would have chosen some for flavor purposes. I suppose the DM could always make you roll for them...

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-11, 09:45 PM
I like to play psions, so it's usually Noncombatant and Murky-Eyed for me, unless I just take a -1 to AC. None of those hurt much, since they can be ignored or circumvented. Touchsight, for instance, allow you to see even invisible creatures, and astral construct lets you ignore all three.

Darius Rae
2010-04-11, 09:45 PM
I recall UA saying that you could take more under the DM's discretion and then referencing the traits section, but I could not figure out what it meant by that.

Dienekes
2010-04-11, 09:50 PM
My group usually uses 0, see Lycanthromancer's post for why. Though my group really just takes flaws into account when creating a character.

Is my character frail? Don't put points into Con. Is he uncoordinated? Don't put points into Balance or Dex. So on and so forth.

The_JJ
2010-04-11, 09:55 PM
A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role. That way, a player can't reduce the flaw's importance through multiclassing. For instance, a flaw that only affects spellcasters might seem reasonable-but for nonspellcaster characters, the flaw likely proves meaningless. Even if you restrict the selection of such feats to characters of specific classes, a player can easily select a spellcasting class at 1st level, choose two flaws that apply to spellcasters, gain the bonus feats, multiclass into a nonspellcasting class at 2nd level and thereafter proceed as a primarily nonspellcasting character. The player has sacrificed a level to gain two bonus feats, a tradeoff that appeals to some players.
Similarly, a flaw that penalizes a character's Charisma based skill checks only has a significant impact on the party spokesperson-the quiet fighter or barbarian likely won't feel any impact from the penalties.

So... yeah.

Take that my power-gamey friends. :smallbiggrin:

balistafreak
2010-04-11, 09:59 PM
Generally, I take would one such as Murky-Eyed because I believe in extra feats.

Then if I really want a cool feat that really doesn't accomplish much (Lifesense or Lifebond from Libris Mortis are quite flavorful but also quite weak) I take a second Flaw, but I still try to mitigate the loss - generally something like the Shaky/Noncombatant but often Unreactive, seeing as most of my characters need to react to what an enemy does, and I would be delaying if I won anyways.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-11, 10:03 PM
So... yeah.

Take that my power-gamey friends. :smallbiggrin:

Still, that's the part about creating new flaws. I understand the intent, but it doesn't change the fact that the existing flaws can be taken by anyone. Of course, the DM can always say no; but that's Rule Zero and it goes for every other aspects of the game.

Anyway, I'm not defending flaws; I personally don't use them.

Volthawk
2010-04-11, 10:17 PM
So... yeah.

Take that my power-gamey friends. :smallbiggrin:

That's saying what flaws should do. Not our fault if they can't even make them well...

See the "regardless of character class or role" bit. They really failed at that.:smallbiggrin:

Myou
2010-04-11, 10:24 PM
So... yeah.

Take that my power-gamey friends. :smallbiggrin:

As said, that's the text on maknig new flaws. They ignored thier own rules and made terrible flaws that are horribly designed.

So... yeah.

Read the whole page before calling people power-gamey. :smallbiggrin:

Volthawk
2010-04-11, 10:25 PM
As said, that's the text on maknig new flaws. They ignored thier own rules and made terrible flaws that are horribly designed.

So... yeah.

Read the whole page before calling people power-gamey. :smallbiggrin:

Hehe, too slow!


That's saying what flaws should do. Not our fault if they can't even make them well...

See the "regardless of character class or role" bit. They really failed at that.:smallbiggrin:

DragoonWraith
2010-04-11, 10:28 PM
As many as I am allowed.

If I were to DM, I wouldn't allow them. I would, on the other hand, have everyone start with 2 feats (humans and the like 3), and gain another feat every odd level thereafter (a la Pathfinder), because I think that there simply are not enough feats available to do creative things. Of course, the Fighter would be all-but-banned...

Basically, I think Flaws are a terrible mechanic, but I think people should have more feats.

Weezer
2010-04-11, 10:29 PM
In my RL games? None, I have a hard enough time not overshadowing everyone without getting free feats. If I'm playing PbP I use however many are allowed, which is generally 2 as suggested by UA.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-11, 10:36 PM
As many as I am allowed.

If I were to DM, I wouldn't allow them. I would, on the other hand, have everyone start with 2 feats (humans and the like 3), and gain another feat every odd level thereafter (a la Pathfinder), because I think that there simply are not enough feats available to do creative things. Of course, the Fighter would be all-but-banned...

Basically, I think Flaws are a terrible mechanic, but I think people should have more feats.This.

I've had, I believe, a single character that wasn't incredibly strapped for feats.

Why should you wait for 15+ levels in order to be functional at a role that you've chosen to do, especially when the one and only feat you actually want is at the end of a very long chain of prerequisites? Is Whirlwind Attack that powerful*?







*Hint: HELL NO

Lord Vukodlak
2010-04-11, 10:38 PM
Shaky/Noncombatant: How often do you see someone using both styles? Pick the other one.

Vulnerable: 1 AC is not a big thing.

Inattentive: If you aren't getting ranks anyway, why not?

Murky-eyed: Anything based on Precision Damage might as well take this, seeing as how they won't be doing much anyway.

As Joe Chaos recommends, don't pick a penalty that will actually effect you.

My wizard has inattentive and I can tell you, almost ALWAYS being flat-foot during the surprise round is a pain, I've been in encounters where everyone gets to act during the surprise round EXCEPT ME. When your spot check is negative you can miss the obvious.

Its become enough of a problem I've considered that as Shadowcraft Gnome PrC has spot as a class skill I just may put ranks into it. But that would actually make the flaw less meaningful.

Vangor
2010-04-11, 10:42 PM
Often I take two, but I tend to do so in a way which reflects my character and is played. While Traits have clear roleplaying ideas given, I find the Flaws do not need such ideas so I still feel they are to be roleplayed around, not merely for powergaming. For example, my Orc Barbarian uses Vulnerable, but he is absolutely reckless in battle. While he has a -1 AC, he creates situations where he is Vulnerable by becoming flanked and similar. In return, he has a feat which builds himself as a reckless, up-close, might-makes-right leader and warrior.

Not the most complex of characters, I know, but effective and playable.

Remember, too, UA is a book of nothing but screaming DM's discretion, not updates to the game but alternate and additional rules you can choose to employ. While DM's discretion is obviously the rule no matter the circumstance, the use of Flaws cannot be assumed, and the use of specific flaws for your character cannot either.

Kaiser Omnik
2010-04-11, 10:45 PM
As many as I am allowed.

If I were to DM, I wouldn't allow them. I would, on the other hand, have everyone start with 2 feats (humans and the like 3), and gain another feat every odd level thereafter (a la Pathfinder), because I think that there simply are not enough feats available to do creative things. Of course, the Fighter would be all-but-banned...

Basically, I think Flaws are a terrible mechanic, but I think people should have more feats.

I am a DM and I approve of this message. I've done exactly what you're suggesting here before and it worked like a charm. I think I restricted the bonus feat at 1st level to skill-related feats (Acrobatic, Animal Affinity and the like), though.

Thiyr
2010-04-11, 11:35 PM
As a player, I tend to enjoy them. I take as many as are made available, but work to make them an aspect of my character. Crippled goblin wizard? Half move speed and penalty on melee attacks (can't walk quickly due to screwy legs, and can't keep self in a decent stance to make a good hit). Now, getting a way around the things that were holding him back (In this case, riding on the back of an ogre and being a wizard). Because presumably the flaw isn't a particularly new thing to the character, wouldn't it make sense that they would specialize in something that isn't as affected by the flaw?

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-12, 12:04 AM
Something that never made sense to me: The Frail flaw.

Requirement: Con of at least 4.

Example Character: Wizard with 4 Con.

Hit Points Gained Per Level: 1d4 -4 (min 0) = always 0.

Hit Points Gained at First level: 4 -4 = 0

Always have 0 max hit points? I'm confused. Is it not supposed to apply at first level, then? Is it not supposed to be able to reduce to 0 on first level, just other levels? How does that work?

Volthawk
2010-04-12, 12:05 AM
Something that never made sense to me: The Frail flaw.

Requirement: Con of at least 4.

Example Character: Wizard with 4 Con.

Hit Points Gained Per Level: 1d4 -4 (min 0) = always 0.

Hit Points Gained at First level: 4 -4 = 0

Always have 0 max hit points? I'm confused. Is it not supposed to apply at first level, then? Is it not supposed to be able to reduce to 0 on first level, just other levels? How does that work?

There's a minimum of one 1hp gain per level. Can't give you a page reference, though.

The Shadowmind
2010-04-12, 12:25 AM
There's a minimum of one 1hp gain per level. Can't give you a page reference, though.

Frail removes the 1 hp minimum and reduces it to 0 minimum. I think you still would have 1hp minimum for first level though, making a level 20 wizard with just 1 hp possible.

Volthawk
2010-04-12, 12:28 AM
Frail removes the 1 hp minimum and reduces it to 0 minimum. I think you still would have 1hp minimum for first level though, making a level 20 wizard with just 1 hp possible.

Yeah, must be that limit. Otherwise you'd spend your time always disabled or worse.

arguskos
2010-04-12, 12:35 AM
Shadowmind, no such limitation exists to the best of my knowledge. Thus did Nup-Nup (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-99588.html), the worst possible character, come to be. He's a few posts down, check for SurlySeraph's post. :smallamused:

Coidzor
2010-04-12, 12:56 AM
I've never played with a group that's used them. Every time it hasn't been disallowed when I've designed a character, either to try to get into an online game or just for kicks I've used at least one, usually two.

Eurus
2010-04-12, 12:57 AM
Something that never made sense to me: The Frail flaw.

Requirement: Con of at least 4.

Example Character: Wizard with 4 Con.

Hit Points Gained Per Level: 1d4 -4 (min 0) = always 0.

Hit Points Gained at First level: 4 -4 = 0

Always have 0 max hit points? I'm confused. Is it not supposed to apply at first level, then? Is it not supposed to be able to reduce to 0 on first level, just other levels? How does that work?

If you take a d4 hit die class, have 4 constitution, and take the Frail flaw, I honestly think that being constantly at 0 hit points and therefore disabled without magical aid actually makes a lot of sense. How else are you going to justify that besides some sort of horrible wasting disease? :smallbiggrin:

Draz74
2010-04-12, 01:03 AM
I usually don't use (or allow) flaws. Occasionally I might if I get into a group with a distinctly higher-optimization feel.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-12, 01:37 AM
I allow up to two flaws to be taken, as well as up to three traits. The more feats characters possess, the more unique they can be. Although next time I'm honestly just considering giving everyone one extra feat free at say, 1st, 3rd and 6th level, and skipping the flaws...

Saph
2010-04-12, 05:18 AM
When DMing, the number I allow is "none", because they're a stupid mechanic for all the reasons listed above.

As a player I won't use them unless I'm playing in a fairly high-power game.

2xMachina
2010-04-12, 05:29 AM
The 2 flaws limit on start? That's the only thing written down.

You can take 1 million flaws on 2nd lvl if so permitted.

You can't wink! (http://goblins.keenspot.com/d/20100405.html)

Boci
2010-04-12, 05:51 AM
When DMing, the number I allow is "none", because they're a stupid mechanic for all the reasons listed above.

As a player I won't use them unless I'm playing in a fairly high-power game.

Do you agree with the idea of "extra feats are good, but flaws are a bad way to do this", or just the "flaws are bad" bit.

I usually take two, since if they are allowed that is how many are available. One of my DMs said I could take as many as I wanted, but I was honest and said that there were only two that felt right for my character, so I would only take more for the power boost. And yes, bothfélaws I took have had an impact on my character so far.

Saph
2010-04-12, 06:00 AM
Do you agree with the idea of "extra feats are good, but flaws are a bad way to do this", or just the "flaws are bad" bit.

I'm not even sure about the "extra feats are good" part. Everyone who says that always picks examples like Whirlwind Attack, or Blind-Fight, or other mostly-useless feats. But then when I look at actual character sheets, the kind of feats that get taken with flaws are things like Chain Spell, or Shock Trooper, or Divine Metamagic.

Feat slots are one of the limiting factors on a character's power. Giving every Wizard and Sorcerer two free metamagic feats in exchange for a pair of flaws (Noncombatant and Vulnerable) that are never going to have the slightest impact on the character doesn't seem like the best idea to me.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 06:04 AM
I'm not even sure about the "extra feats are good" part. Everyone who says that always picks examples like Whirlwind Attack, or Blind-Fight, or other mostly-useless feats. But then when I look at actual character sheets, the kind of feats that get taken with flaws are things like Chain Spell, or Shock Trooper, or Divine Metamagic.

Feat slots are one of the limiting factors on a character's power. Giving every Wizard and Sorcerer two free metamagic feats in exchange for a pair of flaws (Noncombatant and Vulnerable) that are never going to have the slightest impact on the character doesn't seem like the best idea to me.

Shock Trooper is rarely taken as a Flaw, as flaws are generally taken at level 1, and Shock Trooper requires a BAB +6. DMM is a valid point, though.

Boci
2010-04-12, 06:16 AM
I'm not even sure about the "extra feats are good" part. Everyone who says that always picks examples like Whirlwind Attack, or Blind-Fight, or other mostly-useless feats. But then when I look at actual character sheets, the kind of feats that get taken with flaws are things like Chain Spell, or Shock Trooper, or Divine Metamagic.

Feat slots are one of the limiting factors on a character's power. Giving every Wizard and Sorcerer two free metamagic feats in exchange for a pair of flaws (Noncombatant and Vulnerable) that are never going to have the slightest impact on the character doesn't seem like the best idea to me.

As you said, it depends on how the flaws are used. If everyone or no one in the group abuses flaws, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Powergaming is not a bad thing if you take the other party members into consideration.


Shock Trooper is rarely taken as a Flaw, as flaws are generally taken at level 1, and Shock Trooper requires a BAB +6.

The preqs could be taken though.

Emmerask
2010-04-12, 06:21 AM
None and I don´t allow any when I dm

Saph
2010-04-12, 06:22 AM
As you said, it depends on how the flaws are used. If everyone or no one in the group abuses flaws, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Powergaming is not a bad thing if you take the other party members into consideration.

The standard argument that gets made for Flaws is "But most feats are really weak, is it such a bad thing to get free Weapon Focus?" See Lycanthromancer's post above.

To which the answer is, "you aren't going to be taking the weak feats in the first place." It's like arguing that Leadership is balanced because you could pick a weak cohort.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 06:23 AM
The preqs could be taken though.

Hm. Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush.

Let's face it. If someone wants to do a DMM build or a Shock Trooper build, they're going to have it, with or without flaws.

A non-human with no flaws and full bab can have shock trooper at level 6. Flaws will give something like leap attack, or mounted combat, or some other aspect that is useful, but ultimately ancillary to the concept.

But the anchor of a build? That's gonna be there, with or without flaws. Don't use the imbalance of DMM or the strength of Shock trooper to claim the imbalance of flaws.

Yes, flaws aren't balanced. But that's not why. People are gonna have the "best feats", flaw or no flaw. Flaws give the "second best".

Flaws are imbalanced because there's no way to ensure, outside of rule 0, that the flaw taken has any impact on a character. If there were a cost for the benefit, it would be more balanced.


The standard argument that gets made for Flaws is "But most feats are really weak, is it such a bad thing to get free Weapon Focus?" See Lycanthromancer's post above.

To which the answer is, "you aren't going to be taking the weak feats in the first place." It's like arguing that Leadership is balanced because you could pick a weak cohort.
Not at all. People get feats normally. They're going to choose the strongest feats for those, generally.

Flaw feats give the extras that there's not normally room for, that add to the effectiveness.

I don't think anyone would consider DMM an "extra that we'll squeeze in if we can find space".

Because that's what flaws buy.

Boci
2010-04-12, 06:24 AM
The standard argument that gets made for Flaws is "But most feats are really weak, is it such a bad thing to get free Weapon Focus?" See Lycanthromancer's post above.

To which the answer is, "you aren't going to be taking the weak feats in the first place."

I never try and justify flaws with that. I'm always honest, "There are some that fit my character and I like the powe boost they give,".

But as I was saying, if everyone in the party wanted to use flaws to gain good feats (and were open about the intentions), would you allow that as a DM?



Flaws are imbalanced because there's no way to ensure, outside of rule 0, that the flaw taken has any impact on a character. If there were a cost for the benefit, it would be more balanced.

TO aside, there are still many powerful options that the DM will need to regulate, so theres nothing new here.

Saph
2010-04-12, 06:31 AM
But as I was saying, if everyone in the party wanted to use flaws to gain good feats (and were open about the intentions), would you allow that as a DM?

Probably not. First, they encourage samey builds (every Wizard has Noncombatant, ever melee fighter has Shaky, etc). Secondly, if the players are building for power, I really doubt they need the help.

AslanCross
2010-04-12, 06:34 AM
I never ask for flaws when making characters and never allow them in my campaigns. If there's anything that reeks of min-maxing, even if character concept justifies them, it's flaws.

Deth Muncher
2010-04-12, 06:39 AM
I think something that lots of people forget is that UA says that 2 Flaws = 1 Feat, and no more than 2 flaws can be taken. Everyone's like "OHAI, I'mm a take 3 flaws for 3 feats lolololol." Yeahno.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 06:49 AM
I think something that lots of people forget is that UA says that 2 Flaws = 1 Feat, and no more than 2 flaws can be taken. Everyone's like "OHAI, I'mm a take 3 flaws for 3 feats lolololol." Yeahno.


Character Flaws

Flaws are like the flip side of feats. Whereas a feat enables a character to be better than normal at performing a task (or even to do something that normal characters can't), a flaw restricts a character's capabilities or imposes a penalty of some sort.

A player may select up to two flaws when creating a character. After 1st level, a character cannot take on additional flaws unless the game master specifically allows it (for examples of times when doing this might be appropriate, see Character Traits). Each flaw a player selects entitles his character to a bonus feat. In other words, when you create a character, if you select two flaws, you can also take two bonus feats beyond those your character would be normally entitled to.

Umm, no. 2 Flaws = 2 Feats, by the UA guidelines on flaws. That's not something we "forget". It's something we "read and understand".

Boci
2010-04-12, 06:50 AM
I think something that lots of people forget is that UA says that 2 Flaws = 1 Feat, and no more than 2 flaws can be taken. Everyone's like "OHAI, I'mm a take 3 flaws for 3 feats lolololol." Yeahno.

Are you sure? I thought it just said 1 flaw should be twice as bad as a feat.

Critical
2010-04-12, 06:54 AM
As many as allowed... Extra feats are nice.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-04-12, 06:54 AM
If the DM is allowing flaws, I take that as a statement about the intended power level of the game, as much as "core only", "all splatbooks", or "level 11" would be. Ergo, if they're allowed, I use them. I like to have flaws that I can at least tangentially tie to the feat (even if in a rather circumlocutory manner), though.


If there's anything that reeks of min-maxing
And what's so bad about min-maxing? Min/maxxed characters will still have "mins". They're not completely broken and invulnerable to anything but overwhelming brute force.

sofawall
2010-04-12, 06:58 AM
I think something that lots of people forget is that UA says that 2 Flaws = 1 Feat, and no more than 2 flaws can be taken. Everyone's like "OHAI, I'mm a take 3 flaws for 3 feats lolololol." Yeahno.

I have yet to see a single poster get something about flaws wrong in a build submission, and this is somewhat amazing, given the kind of drivel certain people can sometimes post on here.

2xMachina
2010-04-12, 07:15 AM
I think something that lots of people forget is that UA says that 2 Flaws = 1 Feat, and no more than 2 flaws can be taken. Everyone's like "OHAI, I'mm a take 3 flaws for 3 feats lolololol." Yeahno.

Also, it says 2 flaws max, AT THE START.
No max after lvl 1.

Tiki Snakes
2010-04-12, 07:20 AM
No max after character creation, but no way to gain them other than asking the DM for one, either.

Deth Muncher
2010-04-12, 07:23 AM
In response to everyone who hath corrected me: the SRD occasionally has discrepancies with printed things, does it not? If someone can find me the UA text on the subject then I'll back off of this, but I'm 95% certain that it says "2 flaws net you one feat, all of which must be done at CharGen."

2xMachina
2010-04-12, 07:24 AM
Eh, I'd say you can't get the first 2 flaws without asking the DM either.

Gralamin
2010-04-12, 07:25 AM
In response to everyone who hath corrected me: the SRD occasionally has discrepancies with printed things, does it not? If someone can find me the UA text on the subject then I'll back off of this, but I'm 95% certain that it says "2 flaws net you one feat, all of which must be done at CharGen."

Sure here you go:

Each flaw a player selects entitles his character to a bonus feat

Ossian
2010-04-12, 07:32 AM
Flaws are all right, but when I allow them I expect them to be role-played. Ergo, if let you chose a flaw that makes you socially awkward or even inept, it is because I expect a lot of interaction and dialogs with NPCs. Same rule applies to flaws that affect your perception or your combat.

In general though I play low magic (or zero magic) campaigns, at least low magic for the PCs, with less WBL and less powerful / frequent magic items, so flaws can be a hindrance.

(Say +1 swords or level 0-2 scrolls/rings/wands are not so hard to come by, but everything else becomes exponentially rare).

O.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 08:06 AM
In response to everyone who hath corrected me: the SRD occasionally has discrepancies with printed things, does it not? If someone can find me the UA text on the subject then I'll back off of this, but I'm 95% certain that it says "2 flaws net you one feat, all of which must be done at CharGen."

Generally, when rules text contradicting your point is brought to light, and you have no such text supporting you, it is YOUR responsibility to support your own argument with facts, rather than rely on other people do disprove something that's never been supported, and has been contradicted by RAW.

Bad form, sir.

Fitz10019
2010-04-12, 08:29 AM
Depending on your experience, starting with two flaws (3 or 4 feats at character creation) can seem like too much power too early.


I'm honestly just considering giving everyone one extra feat free at say, 1st, 3rd and 6th level, and skipping the flaws...

These later bonus feats are actually more powerful than flaws, because they occur when the characters qualify for more feats.

At least flaw feats are limited to whatever you qualify for at first level.

valadil
2010-04-12, 09:07 AM
I've never used flaws in 3.5 nor encountered any groups who allow them. Assume 0 and if the GM allows more, consider yourself lucky.

mikej
2010-04-12, 10:16 AM
Edit: also, what dragon mag issue can I find the "nature lover" flaw?

Not sure if anyone answered this among the debate over flaws, etc, etc.

I'm pretty sure it's "Love of Nature" and it's in Dragon #324

Some more flaws from other Dragon Magizines can be found here (http://realmshelps.dandello.net/datafind/feats.shtml) Just select "flaws" and hit find.

I get 2-3 flaws usually. I think they're alright. Big help in making your ideal character concept work.

Deth Muncher
2010-04-12, 10:19 AM
Generally, when rules text contradicting your point is brought to light, and you have no such text supporting you, it is YOUR responsibility to support your own argument with facts, rather than rely on other people do disprove something that's never been supported, and has been contradicted by RAW.

Bad form, sir.

How right you are, I am in bad form. Consulting text.

EDIT: I stand corrected. UA p91 says everything I said, save for the fact that it explicitly says get two feats for two flaws. My bust. Sorry for raging, I have no idea where I got it in my head that two flaws = one feat.

EDIT @ v: Wow. I'm epic fail all around today, aren't I.

PhoenixRivers
2010-04-12, 10:21 AM
How right you are, I am in bad form. Consulting text.

No need. Someone already did it for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8279303&postcount=59)

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-12, 10:45 AM
I tend to play builds that have a great many prereq feats (I play psionic characters, factotums, incarnum characters, and ToB-multiclasses, mostly), and so I end up needing a lot of feats that are sub-par to get the character to do what I want him to do.

Take metapsionics, for example. To be able to use a meta nearly as effectively as a wizard, you need A.) at least one metapsionic feat (this is a given), B.) Psionic Meditation (restore psionic focus as a move action), C.) Psicrystal Affinity (to get a psicrystal), D.) Psicrystal Containment (to store a second focus in your psicrystal), E.) Overchannel (to boost the damage of your meta'd dd-powers, since unlike wizards you need to trade damage for your metapsionics), and F.) Talented (to prevent damage from Overchannel).

That's...a lot of feats; unless I go human, and take flaws, as a psion I'd only be able to get those all by level 9. Granted, you can skip Overchannel and Talented, but even if you only do half of what's left, that's still quite a lot. And that's not even including other things I might like to do, such as digging for a concept-appropriate power outside of my discipline list, or nab something else, such as a second metapsionic feat.

The Shadowmind
2010-04-12, 10:56 AM
Isn't part of the reason that feats are needed so much is because so many of them have nearly useless prerequisites? And, many classes don't get the bonus feats they needed to be very effective, like Warlock, Hexblade, Monk(they need more help but that is another thread), etc?
Like:
Point Blank->Precise Shot
Dodge,Mobility->Whirlwind Attack
and PrCs that require feats.

Optimystik
2010-04-12, 11:12 AM
I would say a good middle ground would be to merge some of the crappier feats, and toss flaws entirely. That way, players with a genuinely unique concept at the end of a horrible feat chain have a lot less sucking and waiting to do along the way, while the ones that simply want to grab powerful feats like DMM get no acceleration.

For example, merging Toughness and Improved Toughness, merging Dodge and Mobility, merging Combat Expertise and Combat Reflexes, etc.

Eldariel
2010-04-12, 12:18 PM
I would say a good middle ground would be to merge some of the crappier feats, and toss flaws entirely. That way, players with a genuinely unique concept at the end of a horrible feat chain have a lot less sucking and waiting to do along the way, while the ones that simply want to grab powerful feats like DMM get no acceleration.

For example, merging Toughness and Improved Toughness, merging Dodge and Mobility, merging Combat Expertise and Combat Reflexes, etc.

My preferred option is, yes, fixing some crappy feats, but as that's not nearly enough to make for anything but tunnel vision builds, also just plain increase the number of feats.

2 on 1st level + 1 on 2nd, 4th, etc. is pretty good. Few extras here and there might not hurt either. With all 3.X sources, there's simply too few feats to take anything beyond the bare bones necessities; nothing interesting or special, just focus on one-two strategic paths (unless you're a caster but that's just another cup of worms entirely).

Fiery Diamond
2010-04-12, 02:05 PM
Speaking of making feats better, one thing I always houserule is that Improved Toughness replaces Toughness. As in, the Toughness feat becomes "Gain +1 HP per hit die, both as you increase hit dice and retroactively; you can take this feat more than once and its effects stack. No prerequisites."

The Shadowmind
2010-04-12, 02:13 PM
Since we have shifted to the subject of bad feats how about changing the Skill focus from +3 to a skill to said skill becomes a class skill at all levels and you get 3 ranks in that skill
Special:You can not use this to get more than level+3 ranks in any skill.

And the Athletic,Deceitful,Deft Hands etc. feats become, those skills become class skills at all levels, not bonus or ranks given.
Does that seem to strong, weak, or balanced?

Eloel
2010-04-12, 02:17 PM
Since we have shifted to the subject of bad feats how about changing the Skill focus from +3 to a skill to said skill becomes a class skill at all levels and you get 3 ranks in that skill
Special:You can not use this to get more than level+3 ranks in any skill.

And the Athletic,Deceitful,Deft Hands etc. feats become, those skills become class skills at all levels, not bonus or ranks given.
Does that seem to strong, weak, or balanced?

So, a Rogue that actually 'focuses' on being a trap-disabler (by taking Skill Focus: Disable Device or smt), gets 'no' benefit from the feat, except 3 ranks to spend elsewhere? I don't buy it.

erikun
2010-04-12, 02:21 PM
Flaws, how many of them do YOU take?
Depends on the system. In most, generally one or two, enough to make the character interesting and give them something that they aren't good at.

In D&D, generally zero, because D&D flaws don't make the character interesting and rarely create a situation where they aren't good at something (any more than they would be otherwise, that is). Occasionally I will take a flaw, but in exchange for a similar feat - such as making up a Heat Weakness flaw to pick up the Cold Endurance feat.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-12, 02:28 PM
Depending on your experience, starting with two flaws (3 or 4 feats at character creation) can seem like too much power too early.



These later bonus feats are actually more powerful than flaws, because they occur when the characters qualify for more feats.

At least flaw feats are limited to whatever you qualify for at first level.

Well, yeah, that's one of the problems with how I do it now. There's some Cool But Impractical stuff like Roundabout Kick or Hamstring that takes too long to qualify for.

EDIT: And yeah, you better believe I remind my players of their flaws. Just recently one of my players got told the six MW pistols he looted will take a -4 penalty from Pride of Arms. He acted like I'd clubbed him from behind. >D

Milskidasith
2010-04-12, 02:45 PM
I don't understand why he would be using guns if he had a flaw that gave him -4 to rolls with them.

Anyway, I see flaws as terrible at serving their purpose, but excellent at allowing you to play the character you want. Sure, flaws may be *entirely* negligable to the character concept, and you'll be taking samey flaws (inattentive, -1 to AC, -2 to the attack type you won't be using, pathetic), but they allow you to have differing character concepts.

Adding more feats is more than enough. A lot of feats *doesn't* make characters OP, unless your players are trying to break the game. Even worse, characters get no benefit from prereq feats until they have the stuff later on; for instance, fighters don't power attack (as well) without shock trooper, and picking up persistent spell at third level as a cleric is worthless until sixth level when you get DMM. Adding flaws lets you ignore the stupid "feat chain of suckiness until the capstone" benefit; imagine if your wizard could only cast spells at 20th, or the fighter only got his iteratives (and 10 bonus feats) at level 20, or the monk... err.... bad example.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-12, 02:49 PM
That was the point; he forgot he had the flaw, but I didn't.

Just_Ice
2010-04-12, 02:50 PM
None, usually.

Just another part of 3.5 that should be removed/changed with house rules to foster better roleplaying/character traits than the game is made to include.

Fitz10019
2010-04-12, 02:53 PM
Another option could be, "every 3 levels, you get another feat you would have qualified for at 1st level." This way the extra feats are only as strong as the flaw feats, but you don't get all the front-loading.

It may be too generous to casters, though, considering how many metamagic feats are available at 1st level for casters.

Kaiyanwang
2010-04-12, 02:54 PM
None... I'm flawless :smallamused:

But as a DM, I allow my players take 2 at level 1, and increase as suggested in UA (see traits).

This is because flexibility is good and not gamebreaking, and, as stated, it makes the game experience better.

Is nice to see another combo filled, another capstone reached before it's too late.

Ernir
2010-04-12, 06:43 PM
I take as many as the other players are using.

And I agree with what DragoonWraith said way before me.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-12, 06:56 PM
That's saying what flaws should do. Not our fault if they can't even make them well...

See the "regardless of character class or role" bit. They really failed at that.:smallbiggrin:

Really, the only one with a meaningful penalty is Inattentive. -6 Init? Hurts until about level 8 (5 for casters with access to Nerveskitter).


None... I'm flawless

Insert YGXTAS joke here.



For me, I like trying to squeeze my required feats into my main build. Flaws are there for the feats I want, but don't need.

Arcane-surge
2010-04-12, 07:27 PM
As many as I can, which is usually two.

The whole idea of flaws in games is problematic, though. It means that if you really want to be good at stuff, you need to suck at other stuff. Now that seems like a fairly realistic proposition, but how come in Baseball: the Reckoning, my flawless Short Stop not only isn't on par with the Short Stop who can't read sheet music and has three dozen voodoo curses on him, but is actually worse?

On the other hand, forcing people to take flaws which are guaranteed to affect them mechanically doesn't seem to work at all. You know what you suck at? The stuff you're also really good at. What an awesome place to have a penalty.

In D&D, flaws are designed with these things in mind, as pointed out in that little section on making your own. Players are going to take flaws that affect them in minor ways to get feats that benefit them in major ways. Not because they are minmaxing, gamehating douchebags, but because that is a process of rational decision making. If I have a flaw (bad knees) which makes me bad at football, why would I want to pursue a career in the NFL? Generally, people try to capitalize on their strengths, not their weaknesses.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 07:33 PM
When DMing, the number I allow is "none", because they're a stupid mechanic for all the reasons listed above.

As a player I won't use them unless I'm playing in a fairly high-power game.

same on both counts...

And OP, the ideal way to get more feats is play an elf and use chaos shuffle to replace all your feats with feats of YOUR choice. (every single martial proficiency an elf gets at level 1 is a separate feat)

sofawall
2010-04-12, 08:54 PM
same on both counts...

And OP, the ideal way to get more feats is play an elf and use chaos shuffle to replace all your feats with feats of YOUR choice. (every single martial proficiency an elf gets at level 1 is a separate feat)

So you don't use flaws because they're too powerful, but freely advocate the Dark Chaos Shuffle?:smallconfused:

Thurbane
2010-04-12, 09:03 PM
Really? A lot of them seem to have meaningful penalties to me...

I mean, permanent penalties to saves, fewer HP, attack penalties, AC penalties, movement penalties, ability score penalties... What exactly is a "meaningful penalty" if not those?
You can cherry pick them so they basically don't affect your character (or do so in a minimal way).

I'm pretty sure the most commonly chosen are:

Noncombatant (for casters)
Shaky (for melee types)
Vulnerable (-1 to AC? Big whoop!)

I'm sure almost no one would ever take Meager Fortitude, Slow, Unreactive or Weak Will, except for purely RP reasons, or if they were deliberately trying to build a weak character.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-12, 09:07 PM
So you don't use flaws because they're too powerful, but freely advocate the Dark Chaos Shuffle?:smallconfused:

Head Desk +1.

Not your fault though. Just the idea that flaws are less balanced than the DCFS is Head Desk-material. Taltamir, you should know better.

Thurbane
2010-04-12, 09:20 PM
For example, merging Toughness and Improved Toughness, merging Dodge and Mobility, merging Combat Expertise and Combat Reflexes, etc.
I completely agree with this concept.

In the past, I have mooted the concept of "Feat tiers", and instead of gaining a feat every X levels, each level(s) you get "feat points" with which to buy feats. As a loose guideline, Toughness or Endurance might cost 1 feat point, while Travel Devotion might cost 3. Also, feats in a chain might be cheaper to buy, since you've already paid a "feat tax" for the reqs.

Problem trying to implement this is the huge number of feats out there, and assigning a value to each one would be a mammoth task.

Curmudgeon
2010-04-12, 09:44 PM
2, the maximum allowed. Of course, I expect my DM to take particular note of whatever vulnerabilities come with those flaws, and use them against my character.
Shaky? Expect a lot of enemies who use ranged attacks and don't close for melee.
Vulnerable? Big groups of low-level attackers, who probably would rarely hit if my character had decent AC.
Noncombatant? Sorry, there's just tons of natural concealment all around (dense foliage, ground fog, and the like).

Melayl
2010-04-12, 10:07 PM
I completely agree with this concept.

In the past, I have mooted the concept of "Feat tiers", and instead of gaining a feat every X levels, each level(s) you get "feat points" with which to buy feats. As a loose guideline, Toughness or Endurance might cost 1 feat point, while Travel Devotion might cost 3. Also, feats in a chain might be cheaper to buy, since you've already paid a "feat tax" for the reqs.

Problem trying to implement this is the huge number of feats out there, and assigning a value to each one would be a mammoth task.

Sean K. Reynolds has done some of the work for you... (http://http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html)

balistafreak
2010-04-12, 10:26 PM
While that site is pretty good, I laughed at some of his ideas.

Metamagic feats being as low as 5 featpoints (half a feat) made me cringe. OH GOD DIVINE METAMAGIC HERE WE GO. (Then again, to be fair, that might be the fault of Divine Metamagic, not the feats. Divine Metamagic might be like 20-30 points under this system. :smalltongue:) Casters don't need to be more versatile than they are...

I hate how the two-weapon feats are still full cost. TWF has generally been worse than picking up a greatsword and calling it a day, and these feats could do with being 5 or so points. Maybe even less. Maybe just fold them all into one feat. Yeah, TWF needs some love. :smallfrown:

In general, he's priced most of the feats as slightly less than their base cost - pretty conservative. Personally, I believe he should have been a lot more radical, costing things at 3-5 feat points a lot more than he did, and naming some of the feats as much more expensive.

HunterOfJello
2010-04-12, 10:53 PM
I take EVERY Flaw and EVERY Trait.

SethFahad
2010-04-12, 11:24 PM
Always 2 flaws! Two feats are treasure!

And the excuse: "meh, flaws are lame, take feats for free" is....simply...enraging :smallmad:

Toric
2010-04-12, 11:30 PM
I see flaws as opportunities (or attempts) to add mechanical benefits for characterization you'd include anyway. As has been stated, though, it's easy to work them into minimal penalties for free feats. It's really up to the DM to judge which flaws are allowed for which character.

My group generally takes two flaws per character. Recently I've gotten into a trend of taking one mechanical flaw from the UA list, and another roleplay flaw that suits the character. The roleplay feat generally introduces an absolute personality trait to the character. For example, in addition to "Murky-Eyed", my latest character has the flaw "Obstinate Loyalty": Upon a Sense Motive check that shows a character to be innocent or trustworthy, Blanky McAdventurersonfurter will steadfastly defend said character's motives and actions to the point of absurdity.

Did I mention that my character is a Van Helsing-style monster hunter?:smallbiggrin:

Milskidasith
2010-04-13, 12:32 AM
That was the point; he forgot he had the flaw, but I didn't.

I'm kind of dredging this post up, but what I meant was that, even if he forgot he had the -4 to guns flaw, his character concept wasn't really based on using guns so he'd be pretty inept with them anyway.

As a side note, I really don't like the concept of roleplay flaws, because it seems to encourage trading off roleplaying for mechanical benefits. Not that I believe in the stormwind fallacy, but when you have a flaw that causes your character to always act static and do some roleplay action to the point of absurdity, it can get, well, absurd, and lead to having serious sessions interrupted by the flaw while making the character less deep. If a character has a flaw that's roleplaying based and big enough to give a mechanical bonus in exchange, it seems like a lot of the time (from my experience) the player hams it up and the flaw becomes a huge part of their character, far more than a single trait should be.

EDIT: I've already considered closing the tab with the feat point system when he suggested spontaneous casters get more out of metamagic than prepared casters. Because we all know metamagic costing your ability to cast spells quickly and your inability to use the best metamagic, quicken, makes metamagic somehow better, especially when spontaneous casters have a harder time accessing DMM or incantatrix.

EDIT: Reading through it entirely, the guy has no clue what the real value of feats are, or at least couldn't get past the "these benchmarks are balanced against each other" way of thinking; while yes, acrobatic may be less useful than skill focus, that doesn't mean that your benchmark skill feat (skill focus) is as good as your other benchmark feats. I mean, really, skill focus at 10 points while metamagic is at 5? The only feats that cost more than 10 are manyshot and TWF, which is a huge chain for a suboptimal build? It costs less to get freaking quicken spell than brew potion or scribe scroll or, indeed, any feat in the SRD? Augment summoning is considered weak even for summoners?

I don't understand his logic at all.

Optimystik
2010-04-13, 05:45 AM
So, a Rogue that actually 'focuses' on being a trap-disabler (by taking Skill Focus: Disable Device or smt), gets 'no' benefit from the feat, except 3 ranks to spend elsewhere? I don't buy it.

How about - it gives ranks in the skill so long as you aren't at the cap (level + 3), and if you are, it gives a competence bonus instead?

That way, it provides a useful boost for dedicated practitioners and dilettantes alike.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-13, 08:41 AM
How about - it gives ranks in the skill so long as you aren't at the cap (level + 3), and if you are, it gives a competence bonus instead?

That way, it provides a useful boost for dedicated practitioners and dilettantes alike.Just make sure that the reading of the feat explicitly says that the type of bonus is activated (and is permanent and unchangeable) when you take the feat; otherwise, you get 3 ranks, take a couple of ranks next level, and get a +3 competence bonus as well.

Optimystik
2010-04-13, 09:45 AM
Just make sure that the reading of the feat explicitly says that the type of bonus is activated (and is permanent and unchangeable) when you take the feat; otherwise, you get 3 ranks, take a couple of ranks next level, and get a +3 competence bonus as well.

Actually, I'm fine with it changing once - from ranks to bonus, by spending enough skill points to hit the cap naturally. Just make it so the ranks granted by the feat and natural skill points don't stack.

Say I'm a level 1 Wizard. I have 1 skill point in Disable Device, because it's cross-class. I then take the Skill-Focus - DD becomes a class-skill, and I get 3 ranks, bumping me up to 4. Next level, my DD cap goes up to 5. I can choose to spend one skill point, taking me to 5 ranks, or choose to spend 4, replacing the ranks from the feat completely. At that point, the ranks from the feat convert to a bonus, granting me a base skill modifier of 8 (5 ranks + 3 competence bonus.) This is the same a Rogue 2 would have, with max ranks in Disable Device and Skill Focus.

Once I hit the cap this way, I can never go back to having the feat grant ranks - it behaves like the normal Skill Focus feat from there on out, only granting a competence bonus, even if later levels raise my skill cap. But it keeps the feat from being useless if I ever gain more skill points later, say by multiclassing into something that gets more of them.

Amiel
2010-04-13, 09:58 AM
Couldn't you just roleplay the mechanic?

Feats should really be a representation of how well you've trained or progressed through your lifetime, not items that are able to be bought straight out of a random catalogue.

Optimystik
2010-04-13, 10:16 AM
Couldn't you just roleplay the mechanic?

Feats should really be a representation of how well you've trained or progressed through your lifetime, not items that are able to be bought straight out of a random catalogue.

Good roleplay should provide bonuses to mechanics, not replace them. Roleplaying feats is a great way to punish the more introverted members of your gaming group.

Amiel
2010-04-13, 10:40 AM
While it may provide a bonus, it should not hand out a free feat; there is too much inherent abuse potential.
How is it a punishment when it is actually rewarding the character, despite what it wishes us to think? You are benefiting from appreciable gain for little cost. The flaw does not stipulate what you can and cannot have or have access to; the flawed character could very well pick frail and then pick up Toughness as a feat. Of course, it is probably frowned upon, but there is no strict denial.

There are much more better ways to encourage the introverted members of your group to play; taking them out of their comfort zone via roleplay for one. You are effectively punishing someone for their personality, an option that is only going to further alienate them from the game, and more disastrously, can force them to quit the game altogether. Why would you even want to punish the introverted members of your roleplaying group?

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-13, 10:54 AM
I'm kind of dredging this post up, but what I meant was that, even if he forgot he had the -4 to guns flaw, his character concept wasn't really based on using guns so he'd be pretty inept with them anyway.

Well, IMC pistols are simple weapons due to ease of use, and very handy because I houserule catching a target flat-footed with a ranged weapon is an automatic crit, so it's a little more frustrating than losing an almost-useless exotic weapon anyway. OTOH, she's an 11th-level Fighter so she's not bad (+9 ranged) with the pistols even with the penalty; flaws should be like that, ideally making something much harder, but not impossible.

balistafreak
2010-04-13, 06:54 PM
Well, IMC pistols are simple weapons due to ease of use.

Are we still talking about D&D here? Because I would argue that in a standard D&D world the idea of a pistol would require special training. Seriously, if you've actually handled a gun, you'd realize just how damn finnicky the things are. Pulling the trigger might be easy, but hitting the target is not.

On a more related note, what is this "(Dark) Chaos Shuffle" that I keep hearing about?

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-13, 07:09 PM
Are we still talking about D&D here? Because I would argue that in a standard D&D world the idea of a pistol would require special training. Seriously, if you've actually handled a gun, you'd realize just how damn finnicky the things are. Pulling the trigger might be easy, but hitting the target is not.

On a more related note, what is this "(Dark) Chaos Shuffle" that I keep hearing about?Cast embrace the dark chaos and shun the dark chaos to swap out your feats for other feats of your choosing. Even better if you worship elder evils to get extra bonus feats that you get back after you've shuffled them out for other feats.

Starbuck_II
2010-04-13, 07:10 PM
While it may provide a bonus, it should not hand out a free feat; there is too much inherent abuse potential.
How is it a punishment when it is actually rewarding the character, despite what it wishes us to think? You are benefiting from appreciable gain for little cost. The flaw does not stipulate what you can and cannot have or have access to; the flawed character could very well pick frail and then pick up Toughness as a feat. Of course, it is probably frowned upon, but there is no strict denial.

Frown upon? Please, toughness is weak sauce.
DMs should be glad he chose poorly if worry about appreciable gain.




Are we still talking about D&D here? Because I would argue that in a standard D&D world the idea of a pistol would require special training. Seriously, if you've actually handled a gun, you'd realize just how damn finnicky the things are. Pulling the trigger might be easy, but hitting the target is not.

Have you ever used a crossbow? Pulling the trigger is easy, but hitting a target isn't. Crossbow= simple weapon.

balistafreak
2010-04-13, 07:19 PM
Have you ever used a crossbow? Pulling the trigger is easy, but hitting a target isn't. Crossbow= simple weapon.

Should have elaborated, my bad. :smallredface: The small size and balance of a pistol make it more difficult to hit with than a weapon with a stock. To expect to shoot as accurately with a pistol as with a rifle (at a short enough distance to make individual bullet ballistics negligible) is difficult, to say the least.

This is what I believed was the difference between a crossbow and handcrossbow, and why the former is a simple weapon while the latter is an exotic one. Until you're actually practiced/trained to shoot with one hand, I'd expect a large drop in accuracy.

However, it really isn't all that hard to shoot a one-handed projectile weapon, hardly an entire feat. (I will never, ever, ever, be able to fight with a chain in my life, especially one with spikes on it, but a handcrossbow might take me a few weeks to get familiar with in comparison.) Maybe these should be more like martial weapons. Anyone who's handled arms should be able to pick it up quickly enough.

House-rules-musings aside, the American obsession with handguns has never been something I've completely understood, except in the realm of Rule of Cool.

Lycanthromancer
2010-04-13, 07:36 PM
House-rules-musings aside, the American obsession with handguns has never been something I've completely understood, except in the realm of Rule of Cool.These things practically explain themselves.

Piedmon_Sama
2010-04-13, 07:37 PM
At the risk of derailing the thread further, thanks for the insight--I'd never thought about the stock as a factor in accuracy. Also I didn't mention the auto-crit thing only works at 1/2 the weapon's increment, so you have to be within 25 feet with a pistol.

Il_Vec
2010-04-13, 07:58 PM
I play in a group that encourages strong-but-not-broken characters, and no one has ever taken a flaw. And the DM never said we couldn't.

Thurbane
2010-04-13, 08:26 PM
Sean K. Reynolds has done some of the work for you... (http://http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html)
Nice theory, but I can't say I remotely agree with his assessment of what the feats are worth in the majority of cases. TWF is an uberfeat? :smallamused:


Frown upon? Please, toughness is weak sauce.
DMs should be glad he chose poorly if worry about appreciable gain.
Mechanically, yes. From a flavor/logic POV, the character is now both frail and tough... :smalltongue:

Thurbane
2010-04-13, 08:34 PM
Good roleplay should provide bonuses to mechanics, not replace them. Roleplaying feats is a great way to punish the more introverted members of your gaming group.
And min/maxing them is a great way to punish players who aren't great at min/maxing. There's a flipside to most things.

Not that I personally advocate the roleplaying feats suggestion, but the "punishing the introverted" is an argument I see quite often (not usually in regards to feats, though), yet an argument about players who aren't good at min/maxing is usually met with "Well they should learn!" or "Have one of the optimizers build their character for them".

Either style of play is just as likely to "punish" a particular type of player...

Sorry, this is really OT, and I hope it doesn't derail the thread too much. :smalleek: