Noob question: Are Flaws broken?

[Wonton]

It sounds like a stupid question, but the simple truth is, Unearthed Arcana has never been allowed in our group until now. So the question is:

Are Flaws from Unearthed Arcana broken?

[TooManyBadgers]

They allow characters to become more powerful than they ordinarily would by taking flaws that don't really matter (eg. Noncombatant/Murky-Eyed on a Summoning or Battlefield Control-oriented Wizard) in exchange for mechanical benefits.

But whether they're "broken" is a kind of sticky question. If all the players take the same number of them, nothing's necessarily "broken" because the players are still on an even playing field with one another.

[zmasterofjersey]

Depends on what ones you take.

A wizard or sorcerer taking noncombatant (-2 to melee attack rolls) is broken, but the same person taking shaky (-2 to ranged attack rolls) isn't as broken as it hurts spells that use ranged touch attacks.

Things like murky-eyed are almost never applied unless the DM goes out of their way to make it hurt the character.

EDIT: Ninjaed..

[Mr.Moron]

They typically represent a power increase (being able to do more, sooner) but aren't going to really bring up any problems you wouldn't have with standard feat allocation, it'll just bring up those same issues sooner. I like them because they add flexibility. If someone is going to try and abuse that flexibility, they're just going to try and abuse the standard rule set.

[Chineselegolas]

It depends what people do with them. If the bow wielding character takes Shaky to represent and old wound which throws his aim off, not at all.
For the power attacking shock trooper who never fights ranged, it is effectively a free feat.

[LordOfNarf]

The naive answer is no. Flaws always give a greater penalty than the symmetric feat gives a bonus.

That said, flaws can be very broken. If the characters are intent on min/maxing, then flaws can allow them to progress up certain feat chains very fast, in effect giving a HUGE power boost. Sometimes relating to 3-5 CR higher than the party level, just to provide a challenge.

[Aroka]

Flaws aren't broken, but the DM should definitely approve flaws to negate abuses like the ones described above. Why should you get a feat if you're not actually taking a flaw that affects you in a meaningful way?

[Wonton]

The naive answer is no. Flaws always give a greater penalty than the symmetric feat gives a bonus.

That said, flaws can be very broken. If the characters are intent on min/maxing, then flaws can allow them to progress up certain feat chains very fast, in effect giving a HUGE power boost. Sometimes relating to 3-5 CR higher than the party level, just to provide a challenge.

Well, there's 6 of us and we're optimizers, the DM's used to basically giving us "1.5X" CR by this point...

[AslanCross]

Flaws, in and of themselves, aren't broken.
They are, however, fodder for broken builds.

I never allow them.

[Mr.Moron]

Flaws aren't broken, but the DM should definitely approve flaws to negate abuses like the ones described above. Why should you get a feat if you're not actually taking a flaw that affects you in a meaningful way?

Eh, some people don't have really have a problem with a "Close to Free" feat. I don't. Flaws provide a nice way to add in a mechanical representation odd quirks while also increases the number feats available to a player. Since the most feat starved builds are generally those paired with the weakest mechanics (TWF, Archery, etc..) it really doesn't do much to the power ceiling. While the strongest builds in the game may get a bit more wiggle room from bonus feats, you can pull out most of the nastiest tricks without them.

[IdleMuse]

As a DM, I always check Flaws to make sure they aren't TOO irrelevant the character. IMO, the save-reducing ones are pretty much spot-on balance, I use enough concealment that Murky-eyed is always relevant, Slow is almost TOO bad, and so on.

Pathetic, Shaky, Noncombatant, and Frail are the ones I pay most attention too, and am most likely to veto. My friend had a houseruled version for his players that rolls Shaky and Noncombatant into one flaw, and that's more balanced I think. I'm tempted to do the same with Frail and Pathetic.

[Escheton]

Yes, unless you are in a small group.

-4 to spot and listen? who cares? We have a ranger...

-6 to initiative? who cares? We have a rogue...

In smaller groups the chances of getting caught off guard and subsequently ganked become high enough to make even the most used flaws dangerous.
With larger groups there is at least someone who rolls high.

[Greenish]

Flaws, in and of themselves, aren't broken.
They are, however, fodder for broken builds.Same could be said about feats.

[awa]

watch out for
inattentive on characters with no ranks in spot or listen and a low wisdom mod
they weren't going to hear anything anyway and it typically wont matter unless the characters doing something solo because only one person really needs to make spot or listen checks.

Murky eyed rarely comes up because how often does the party need to deal with miss chances.

I would also be wary of pathetic a barbarian with a 6 charisma is not particularly worse off then one with 8.

slow for a mounted character is basically a free feat

noncombatant and shaky have been covered by others so i will skip them.

Now that said odds are a sword and board fighter with inattentive and shaky will not break your game despite the fact that he has basically 2 free feats

[Felyndiira]

A flaw's "brokenness" depends on a lot more than just whether the flaw is relevant to a person's character. If a ranged player, for example, takes noncombatant in order to get a fun character-based feat (elf dilettante, for example), that's not broken at all. If said ranged player instead uses it to take Extend Spell or Woodland Archer, or if the feat is used to qualify for a PrC, I would be a lot more inclined to call it broken.

How "broken" flaws are thus depends not only on what you sacrifice, but also on what you get in exchange for the sacrifice. If the feat that you get is more fluff and fun than utility, then a non-debilitating flaw is definitely not broken if used to qualify for said feat.

EDIT:


Inattentive and Slow
Mounted or not, slow is a painful feat for any character since dismounting exists and will occur way more often than a melee switching to a bow (plus, you're dependent on that mount for any good movement). Inattentive is another one of those flaws that tend to actually hurt; even if your character has a WIS penalty, having a 30% higher chance of being surprised in a surprise round is a pretty massive penalty.

UA already speculated that players will take feats that minimize their penalties while maximizing their benefits, which is why flaws are so much heavier than their corresponding feats. It would make no sense to expect that your party wizard will take patheric: INT, for a character that invests in spot to take inattentive, or that your party Power Attack fighter partake in noncombatant. It's not broken for a player to take feats so that the impact on their character build isn't severe; it's when the flaws will never impact the character at all (along with a correspondingly powerful feat) that it becomes a problem.

[AslanCross]

Same could be said about feats.

Yeah, but feats are a big investment, as they're kind of hard to get. Flaws often end up as free passes to more feats. I rarely see people willing take feats that will actually hamper their characters in a significant way.

In my view, they're just min-max fuel.

[Greenish]

If said ranged player instead uses it to take Extend Spell or Woodland Archer, or if the feat is used to qualify for a PrC, I would be a lot more inclined to call it broken.I don't know. PCs get very few feats as a base, and having to blow several of them for boring (and poor) stuff like Great Fortitude or Weapon Focus is annoying, to say the least. Flaws help there, when you can at least compensate for having to take Great Fortitude by picking it as the feat you gained by taking Meager Fortitude flaw.

[IdleMuse]

{Scrubbed}

[Aroka]

Eh, some people don't have really have a problem with a "Close to Free" feat. I don't. Flaws provide a nice way to add in a mechanical representation odd quirks while also increases the number feats available to a player. Since the most feat starved builds are generally those paired with the weakest mechanics (TWF, Archery, etc..) it really doesn't do much to the power ceiling. While the strongest builds in the game may get a bit more wiggle room from bonus feats, you can pull out most of the nastiest tricks without them.

True enough; basic d20 has way too few feats. I love the wealth of feats in Iron Heroes and Conan d20, and my own Dark Sun house rules included condensing all TWF into exactly two feats (defense and attack, and that's probably too many).

[awa]

The brokenness depends a lot on what class is taking it. It typically grants an increase in power. on a powerful class that might be broken on a weak class that might be just fine. the two weapon fighter with an extra feat wont break the game but an ubercharger might

[Mr.Moron]

True enough; basic d20 has way too few feats. I love the wealth of feats in Iron Heroes and Conan d20, and my own Dark Sun house rules included condensing all TWF into exactly two feats (defense and attack, and that's probably too many).

I think TWF should "be" all of 0 feats. You should have feats that enhance power in similar fashion to how Power Attack enhances THWs. Well, not exactly like Power Attack as it's perhaps a bit too homogenizing but character concept revolving around two weapons should probably at least be minimally functional without a feat tax.

[Chaelos]

I think if the feats that could be accessed by taking flaws were somehow limited, flaws wouldn't be nearly as powerful as they are.

That said, I'm sure the people here will be able to come up with a hundred examples proving that my suspicion is incorrect.

[jumpet]

Get the DM to chose the flaw.

[Aroka]

I think TWF should "be" all of 0 feats. You should have feats that enhance power in similar fashion to how Power Attack enhances THWs. Well, not exactly like Power Attack as it's perhaps a bit too homogenizing but character concept revolving around two weapons should probably at least be minimally functional without a feat tax.

In Conan d20 TWF is actually a proficiency most fighting classes get for free. There's still a few feats involved to improve it. I kinda think getting the AC bonus should be automatic though (because that's the reason you use two weapons - to defend with the other).

[Kantolin]

To chime in agreement with most of the above, flaws are an increase in character power - basically, you get a feat for 'free'. Whether or not this is broken depends on the game, but it's certainly an increase in character power.

Personally, I just give people more feats.

[Morph Bark]

Yes, unless you are in a small group.

-4 to spot and listen? who cares? We have a ranger...

-6 to initiative? who cares? We have a rogue...

In smaller groups the chances of getting caught off guard and subsequently ganked become high enough to make even the most used flaws dangerous.
With larger groups there is at least someone who rolls high.

See, thing is, our group used Traits and Flaws in the current campaign, but rolled randomly for them and got exactly those. The funny thing is that the one with -6 Init really needed flat-footed opponents to deal half the damage she could (loved pimpin' Iaijutsu), and the other was an aasimar, so the racial spot/listen bonuses got knocked down.

Needless to say, if Flaws (or Traits) are rolled randomly for, it suddenly changes up lots.

[fryplink]

Get the DM to chose the flaw.

The best solution to flaws, as he knows whats happening, so he can pick one that will matter, but will still be logical. (no one blind is going to be a mercenary archer, no one mentally handicapped is going to be a wizard, and no one afraid of fighting is going to be a sword and board, this is assuming that your DM is relatively experienced )

[Tar Palantir]

Even with players choosing flaws that have minimal effect on them, the extra feat will typically prove more beneficial to players on the bottom of the power curve rather than those on the top, so if everyone is using flaws it actually helps even out the party power level, thus improving balance.

[Greenish]

Even with players choosing flaws that have minimal effect on them, the extra feat will typically prove more beneficial to players on the bottom of the power curve rather than those on the top, so if everyone is using flaws it actually helps even out the party power level, thus improving balance.I'm not sure that actually holds true. There are plenty of very strong builds that require lots of feats (for example DMM persist cleric).

[ericgrau]

Compared to no flaws? Yes.
Typically DMs put a limit on the number of flaws for this reason, so compared to eachother the players are equal. That gives characters extra power while adding weaknesses that supposedly give them more depth. IMO most of them provide no depth, are merely minmaxing fuel, and might never even get mentioned in roleplaying. For example, non-combatant. I'm a wizard who doesn't get into melee (!).

[Wonton]

I'm not sure that actually holds true. There are plenty of very strong builds that require lots of feats (for example DMM persist cleric).

This is exactly what I was worried about. Not DMM: Persist per se, just that the power gap in our party would only increase.

[Greenish]

This is exactly what I was worried about. Not DMM: Persist per se, just that the power gap in our party would only increase.If everyone is allowed the same amount of flaws, the balance shouldn't be much changed in either direction.

[Kylarra]

If everyone is allowed the same amount of flaws, the balance shouldn't be much changed in either direction.Assuming an optimization gap already exists, the minmax nature of flaws would exacerbate the situation somewhat. If additional feats are what the DM wants to grant, he should just give them more feats. Alternatively, he could restrict the list of feats that can be granted by flaws. Ironically, I'm thinking something like hackmaster's system wherein you have to roll for them if you want full benefits, or you can get much lesser benefits for the bonus of choice. Admittedly, that's a pointbuy system so it's easier to quantify.

[TooManyBadgers]

I much prefer the Traits system for representing the same concept as Flaws with much less potential for abuse.


But I'm also fond of classes at the Monk/Fighter/Warlock/Marshal power level and feats like Skill Focus/Nimble Fingers/Point Blank Shot/Weapon Focus, so I'll acknowledge that my preferences are not those shared by the majority of this board.

[Mr.Moron]

This is exactly what I was worried about. Not DMM: Persist per se, just that the power gap in our party would only increase.

DMM is very doable without flaws. In fact it generally doesn't net you it all that much earlier since equipment is a limiting factor. If you've already got a noticeably large power difference, having a slightly bigger power difference isn't really something to worry about. When it comes to power gaps all that really matters is "Big enough its an issue" vs "Not big enough to be an issue". Generally speaking some bonus feats are probably not going be enough to push the game over that line.

[Greenish]

I much prefer the Traits system for representing the same concept as Flaws with much less potential for abuse.


But I'm also fond of classes at the Monk/Fighter/Warlock/Marshal power level and feats like Skill Focus/Nimble Fingers/Point Blank Shot/Weapon Focus, so I'll acknowledge that my preferences are not those shared by the majority of this board.Liking weaker classes I can understand, but do you honestly prefer +X to Y style feats to the ones that add new options? :smallconfused:

[Milskidasith]

I don't understand why everybody suggests murky eyed as a weak flaw; that one is actually relevant, a lot, if you ever use any kind of attack and the enemies are a fan of the same cloud spells most wizards use.

Now, the -1 AC flaw... people never bring that one up, and that's absolutely meaningless as a flaw even on a build designed around getting really high AC.

Anyway, honestly, the only way flaws are broken, if everybody uses the same amount, is if the players are so differing in optimization potential that their feats are either key to a massively powerful trick or not worth taking a flaw for. Since melee typically needs more feats... it doesn't really hurt to use them.

Also, yes, I would expect people to take irrelevant flaws; UA certainly does. Yeah, noncombatant on a wizard is worthless, but so is -1 AC on anybody, ---4 spot and listen on anybody (unless the whole party takes it, because since spot and listen are so hard to pump up to where an enemy couldn't hide from you if the skills are cross class, they're going to get surprise rounds anyway), pathetic is worthless on everybody (but unfortunately also hard to take with a 32 PB), etc.

[Curmudgeon]

As a DM, I love it when my players create characters with flaws, because that gives me immediate ideas for the enemies I throw at them. Such as sneaky grappler types that gang up on spellcasters with Noncombatant. Or hit-and-run archers against those with Shaky.

I am fair about it, though. I don't exploit PC weaknesses unduly in random encounters. But if the PCs get a reputation in a particular area, there are plenty of observers who are eager to sell info on how they fight, and what tactics seem most effective against them.

[Milskidasith]

As a DM, I love it when my players create characters with flaws, because that gives me immediate ideas for the enemies I throw at them. Such as sneaky grappler types that gang up on spellcasters with Noncombatant. Or hit-and-run archers against those with Shaky.

I am fair about it, though. I don't exploit PC weaknesses unduly in random encounters. But if the PCs get a reputation in a particular area, there are plenty of observers who are eager to sell info on how they fight, and what tactics seem most effective against them.

Err... see, the problem with that is that, AFAIK, noncombatant doesn't affect grappling (grappling is a check, not an attack roll), wizards will autofail grapple checks anyway, and wizards can generally avoid grapples.

I get your point, but there is a reason why flaws are essentially nonpenalties to everybody unless you make a really bad choice. -1 AC, -2 to the a stat you don't need is never going to affect anybody unduly except in very, very rare circumstances.

[thompur]

Speaking of flaws, does anybody know of any more flaws outside of UA?

[Kantolin]

As a DM, I love it when my players create characters with flaws, because that gives me immediate ideas for the enemies I throw at them. Such as sneaky grappler types that gang up on spellcasters with Noncombatant. Or hit-and-run archers against those with Shaky

That actually makes sense, and is in most games where it happens my biggest problem with flaws. A flaw is saying 'The DM/Storyteller has to punish you repeatedly for taking the flaw or you've gotten something for nothing', which is irksome for me as a DM to deal with. But that's what a flaw is - it's the player telling you expressly 'please do that'.

The problem with these flaws (which isn't exclusive to D&D by any means) is that most people take flaws in things they can obviate or just don't really matter. Those sneaky grappler types are about as likely to sneakily grapple the Noncombatant wizard as well as the wizard without the flaw. Wizards generally suck when being grappled, which is why freedom of movement rings or specific counters to grapple are so conceptually common. A -2 on attack rolls will not make the difference between being grappled and not for a typical Strength 8-10 wizard.

The shaky combatant who's being attacked by hit-and-run archers, assuming they're a fighter-type, picked 'shaky' since they have no feats or abilities to power ranged combat. My level 16 psychic warrior is strength-based, and I've discovered that his damage with his composite longbow is fairly laughable - certainly nothing compared to his damage with his melee weapon as that's where his focus is. Whenever I use my bow, I am saying 'I give up being relevant this turn - someone else do something'. Taking a penalty to doing that wouldn't be a terribly big deal.

Now, if you were a frontliner with noncombatant, that'd come up a ton. Same with if you were an archer with shaky. But eh - in those example situations listed, the wizard will want to dimension door or freedom of movement or something regardless of the presence of a flaw, and an ubercharger will want to ubercharge his problems away (Which he may not be able to do, but that's the listed problem with an ubercharger anyway).

This becomes especially true when you have a party there to cover your weaknesses. Hit and running archers? Have the party wizard put up walls or haste the beatstick or something. People grappling the wizard? Have your friendly barbarian and helpful ranger go power attack and two weapon fight the sneaky guy who's just lost his dexterity modifier to AC.

I suppose in short: Trying to punish people for most of the commonly-mentioned D&D flaws still doesn't make them much of a cost, leaning heavily still on 'free feat'.

[TooManyBadgers]

Liking weaker classes I can understand, but do you honestly prefer +X to Y style feats to the ones that add new options? :smallconfused:
I prefer to assume all characters have those options.

If they're game-breaking (ie. DMM), I prefer to assume no characters have those options.

Without these assumptions, anything that isn't a full spellcaster or skillmonkey is just too boring to even try.

[Milskidasith]

I prefer to assume all characters have those options.

How can you assume all characters have access to, say, all tactical feats? Giving everybody shock trooper, stormguard warrior, those other eight school tactical feats, etc. seems like an utterly massive power boost.

[Greenish]

I prefer to assume all characters have those options.Wait, what? :smallconfused:

[TooManyBadgers]

How can you assume all characters have access to, say, all tactical feats? Giving everybody shock trooper, stormguard warrior, those other eight school tactical feats, etc. seems like an utterly massive power boost.
If it's a massive power boost, I won't allow it, period.

But I really don't have an objection to eg. the party's Paladin using effects that mirror Knockdown or Knockback.

Edit:
Tangent:

The thing that bothers me the most about D&D is that it is founded on the assumption that players can't take actions unless specifically spelled out in a Feat/Nonweapon Proficiency/Power.

I shouldn't have to take Improved Trip to knock a baddy over*, I shouldn't have to take power attack to sacrifice accuracy for power, or shock trooper to fight recklessly. I shouldn't have to take Sand Dancer to throw dirt in an enemy's eyes. Feats should make a character better at what he does, not act as binomial "you can do something"/"you can't do ****" toggle. This is why Fighters/Hexblades/Paladins/Samurai/etc. are so damn boring to play - the feat system forces them to become 1-trick ponies if they want to even try to do anything at all.

*Yes this is technically possible without the feat, but the AoOs involved in most untrained combat maneuvers make them prohibitively difficult to use in most circumstances.

Yes, this mentality may make combat more tactically engaging. Yes, it may make a better miniatures wargame. Yes, it depends on you not playing with *******s. No, it does not have any place in a roleplaying game.

Anyway, I should probably stop this threadjacking thing.

[true_shinken]

Flaws are broken, as in they are bad game design. It's funny because the same book has traits - the same concepts, except it works.
Flaws are just more ammo for powergaming and building ridiculous characters. It's not a tool to get a 'quirk', it's a way to qualify earlier to PrCs or to get a little extra power (or A LOT of extra power depending on the build)... and it just so happens you have -X in something you don't care about.
Flaws are utterly pathetic and I hate'em.

[Gavinfoxx]

There are tons of flaws all over dragon magazine. Go here, select flaws, and it will give you a list of all of them.

http://www.realmshelps.org/datafind/feats.shtml

[Escheton]

Same as for most things concerning broken:
lvl 1-6 meh, would prolly hurt either way and thus be balanced for the benefit.
lvl 7-14 barely noticing the penalty loving the perks
lvl 15-20 MUAHAHA I have become GOD!!! huh what? a slight minus? I have the full featchain complete and have raped the system. Screw your puny minus.




Without these assumptions, anything that isn't a full spellcaster or skillmonkey is just too boring to even try.

you should really check out "Tome of Battle", "Tome of Magic" and "Magic of Incarnum".
No really, you should

[Zaydos]

My favorite flaw is Forlorn; Dragon Magazine, trade familiar for a feat. Although Conjurers have better things to trade their familiar for. And hey if you want a familiar pick up Obtain Familiar which is better than your class feature.

Are flaws broken? They enable more min-maxing. They exist solely to enable more min-maxing. If they are allowed in game and the other players are using them I will too. If I DM I usually don't see the need to allow them. Are they broken, though? I will say they boost power, and some are broken, but I wouldn't say they are themselves intrinsically broken. Would giving everybody an extra feat at first level, no strings attached be broken? It's just a choice of gaming style.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Fighters are broken. I mean, look at all those feats! Unleashing a very small portion of that power of low level characters? Nonsense! Your entire campaign world would crumble at that if that kind of power level were allowed!

[HunterOfJello]

2 extra feats at level 1 are unlikely to completely break a character and make them far more powerful than they would be without them.

In general, they give characters more leeway and options. It also helps to discourage everyone in your group from playing a Human.



(Excluding Pun-Pun types of course.)

[Wonton]

Fighters are broken. I mean, look at all those feats! Unleashing a very small portion of that power of low level characters? Nonsense! Your entire campaign world would crumble at that if that kind of power level were allowed!

I see what you did there.

[PId6]

I see no problems with flaws. 3.5 really doesn't give enough feats to begin with, and flaws are a way to bypass that. Yes, it's kind of stupid to pick flaws that don't hurt you at all simply for extra feats, but it's also stupid that you only get 7 feats in 20 levels and they actually expect anyone to take Skill Focus. Ultimately, almost all broken combos can be achieved without flaws anyway; the extra feats just allow for more interesting builds to work (especially those involving feat-heavy combat styles like archery or TWF).

Of course, the best solution is to just hand out free feats to everyone (I prefer two at 1st level, and one every odd level after that; that goes for both players and enemies). Since that's only a houserule, however, flaws have a use in providing an easy way of gaining more feats within the given rules.


I don't understand why everybody suggests murky eyed as a weak flaw; that one is actually relevant, a lot, if you ever use any kind of attack and the enemies are a fan of the same cloud spells most wizards use.
Eh, I could see taking that on most rogues, since you're either utterly screwed by concealment anyway, or have Improved Precise Shot (or similar) and don't care.

(Also, less rules-heavy DMs tend to skip right over the concealment rules; I've certainly had my share of those.)

[Kylarra]

Technically, variant rules are just "officially presented" houserules, so it's not "within the given rules" per se.:smalltongue:

[PId6]

Technically, variant rules are just "officially presented" houserules, so it's not "within the given rules" per se.:smalltongue:
Well, so are PrCs, for that matter. I meant that Flaws are printed somewhere official though, as opposed to just something you make up.

[Curmudgeon]

Wizards generally suck when being grappled, which is why freedom of movement rings or specific counters to grapple are so conceptually common. A -2 on attack rolls will not make the difference between being grappled and not for a typical Strength 8-10 wizard.
It's not the being grappled itself that's of concern; I assume that the Noncombatant Wizard will lose. It's that in avoiding the grapple, or getting out of one, many good spell choices are touch attack spells, precisely what Noncombatant penalizes.

[Milskidasith]

It's not the being grappled itself that's of concern; I assume that the Noncombatant Wizard will lose. It's that in avoiding the grapple, or getting out of one, many good spell choices are touch attack spells, precisely what Noncombatant penalizes.

Except you can't really use spells while grappled anyway. Generally, you're going to be getting out with Freedom of Movement, Abrupt Jaunt, Anklets of Translocation, or DDoor.

[PId6]

Except you can't really use spells while grappled anyway. Generally, you're going to be getting out with Freedom of Movement, Abrupt Jaunt, Anklets of Translocation, or DDoor.
Don't forget Heart of Water. I always make sure my arcane casters have that on 24/7. So useful when you really need it, and goes nicely with Heart of Earth.

[Stompy]

I hate flaws and disallow them whenever possible in my DMing because they aren't flaws if they are like the 8 STR non-combatant that failed everything in melee anyway. Most of the flaws PCs pick tend to do this.

That being said, I also hate most of the fighting feats, and most need to be consolidated, or made so that they aren't a feat tax (I'm looking at you Point Blank Shot).

I want flaws to be more flavorful, like some of the ones in tri-stat dX (Significant Other, Nemesis, Owned by ____, and Code of Honor stand out in my mind) The current flaws are too boring and don't give the DM something to work with. Hell you could even stack the flaws (take them twice) to make them even more significant, i.e. for a paladin that would rather die than break his honor.

[faceroll]

I like flaws. They help out the mundanes a considerable deal in meeting all the crappy feat taxes to do anything worthwhile. Casters get spells, which are like feats only 1000x better, so a couple more feats won't hurt them. I'm pretty sure the tier 1 classes need only 3 feats max, each, to go from game breakers to breaking the game into even smaller pieces. If your cleric is DMM: persisting, then it really doesn't matter if he picks up power attack- your fighter is already outclassed.

[FMArthur]

Flaws are effectively free feats and aren't balanced by their penalties at all; I mostly look at it as two separate, beneficial effects: more interesting character concepts can start early (and more feats by default reduces the Human/Strongheart Halfling monopoly) and the flaws themselves can give players ideas on roleplaying a character with weaknesses despite them being relatively unimportant mechanically. I also like traits for this.

[CyMage]

Flaws aren't broken, but the DM should definitely approve flaws to negate abuses like the ones described above. Why should you get a feat if you're not actually taking a flaw that affects you in a meaningful way?

But the flaw does affect you in a meaningful way... If you've been Shaky all your life, wouldn't you train in different ways of combat so it's not as crippling?

Now if you could gain flaws after level 1, then it could go either way.

Overall, I think flaws aren't too bad if the whole group uses them equaly.

[Terazul]

I don't really feel they're bad in any way, given D&D really hurts in the feat starved department. As said before, any of the wacky wombo-combos can be done without it, and often times cash is a limiting reagent for those anyway. What it really helps in doing is letting specialized builds get off the ground faster, so you're not stuck shooting your friend in the face for X levels (Oh Archery~) or swinging with every penalty under the sun (oh TWF~), or just let some of the more interesting ones get rolling quicker.

As for the "people pick the ones that hurt them the least"... well, duh. That's a completely natural and encouraged thought. Of course you go for the thing that cripples you the least. I'd kind of look at you awkwardly if someone offered you $20, and a choice between hitting you with a rubber duck and stabbing you with a knife, and you chose the knife. It's fine if you want it for flavor reasons or whatever else is your fancy, but don't get all "HAET MIN-MAX" when the guy who's only taking it so he can get an extra TWF feat takes -2 to ranged attacks instead of a -2 to melee because he never plans on shooting an arrow.

Alternatively, just give everyone more feats.
inb4 "But what about wizards?!"

[Thrice Dead Cat]

But the flaw does affect you in a meaningful way... If you've been Shaky all your life, wouldn't you train in different ways of combat so it's not as crippling?

Now if you could gain flaws after level 1, then it could go either way.

Overall, I think flaws aren't too bad if the whole group uses them equaly.

Except even at first level, a wizard could grab non-combatant and which flaw gives him -4 on spot/listen and not are at all as he doesn't make melee attacks nor will he ever really bother with spot/listen checks with a responsible chance of success past the first few levels of play. It's not as if this wizard will suddenly try to pump his melee attack, spot, or listen and go "Darn, which I hadn't taken those flaws to get Precocious Apprentice and Collegiate Wizard."

[Thiyr]

Honestly, I'm fine with flaws overall. They can add some spice to a character if used really well, but otherwise they give a much-needed resource some more availability. My biggest issue is largely that there aren't -enough- flaws, as the ones they have just get boring after a bit. I've had fun with my crippled wizard (who had slow and noncombatant because his legs just don't work right.) I've had characters with flaws that will more than likely never come into play (a rogue with a penalty on decipher script, forgery, and knowledge history to represent a greater-than-average lack in terms of book-learning). Either way, did that alone push the characters into their power brackets? Not really. the wizard was middle of the groups power zone due to spell selection, not the extra feats he had. Take away the flaws and corresponding feats and my rogue would still be a blender, he just wouldn't be staggering you on the off chance you survive.

And honestly, I prefer it when a character has a flaw to represent a character trait than just not having anything. -frustratedly remembers a party memeber dropping the bow/arrows that the party tank took an AoO to give to him because he was complaining that he could do nothing in the bottle neck because he "doesn't do ranged combat", preferring to do nothing, when there had previously been no indication of that to any of us. Problem with the player, I know, but taking the flaw would have at least given him a slightly better excuse-

[CyMage]

Except even at first level, a wizard could grab non-combatant and which flaw gives him -4 on spot/listen and not are at all as he doesn't make melee attacks nor will he ever really bother with spot/listen checks with a responsible chance of success past the first few levels of play. It's not as if this wizard will suddenly try to pump his melee attack, spot, or listen and go "Darn, which I hadn't taken those flaws to get Precocious Apprentice and Collegiate Wizard."


But he's extra bad at melee because he spent even more time with his master studying magic. And wasting time in a college library definately wouldn't help his eyesight. I see meaningful flaws for a wizard character.

[Kylarra]

Extra bad at melee is not a meaningful flaw if you were never going to be good at melee in the first place.

[JaronK]

The simple answer is no. "Broken" implies the game is somehow actually broken. Overpowered? Well yes, they're a stronger option than not using them. But not broken.

JaronK

[Thiyr]

Extra bad at melee is not a meaningful flaw if you were never going to be good at melee in the first place.

There is, however, a difference between "Bad but can hit something ocasionally when all else won't work" and "can never hit ever". While yes, in many cases taking noncombatant will not come up for the wizard, there are (admittedly few) situations where it can and will come up if the DM swings things that way. If the wizard has taken other precautions to overcome their flaws, they're doing their job right. Being bad doesn't mean sitting and taking it, it means finding a way to do what need be done some other way.

Furthermore, what you said could well be used as justification to take noncombatant on a wizard. Extra bad at melee (1/2 BAB from being a wizard, a "downside" of the class) is not a meaningful flaw if you were never going to be good at melee in the first place (from being a noncombatant).

[CyMage]

Extra bad at melee is not a meaningful flaw if you were never going to be good at melee in the first place.

It's meaningful depending on how you look at it. You're just looking at it from optimization point of view. 'My wizard is too smart to melee things so the flaw will not affect them!'

If you look at it from RP point of view, it makes sense as well. 'The wizards master focused so much on magical training that the poor boy didn't even receive the rudementary combat training.' Non-combatant flaw turned into Precocious Apprentice.


As I said earlier, since flaws can only be taken at level 1, it makes sense that characters are built with them in mind. Who wouldn't compensate for their weaknesses by going with their strenghts?

[Kurald Galain]

Are Flaws from Unearthed Arcana broken?
Yes. Flaws in D&D are fundamentally broken for this reason: they let you take a penalty for something you don't want to do in the first place, to gain a bonus for something you want to do all the time. This brokenness applies to most RPG systems that contain "flaws".

The alternative method is better: that you only gain a bonus for the flaw when it actually comes up in gameplay. Whitewolf flaws ("vices") can give you additional experience points when they hamper you in the game, and will do nothing if the situation never comes up.

[Psyx]

Flaws allow you to hamper a part of your character that you don't give a darn about in order to gain a precious feat in an area you do care about.

A rogue taking -4 to Notice checks in exchange for Toughness is not broken.
A wizard taking -4 to spot checks and a bunch of other flaws that make no difference to him in exchange for three wizard feats isn't broken, but it is over-powered.

I would never consider allowing them, and nor would any GM that I know.

To my mind, too many games treat flaws as 'free XP' where every character takes the maximum number of flaws that have the smallest impact in exchange for the maximum number of high-impact merits. Con-X, LoTR and WoD all spring immediately to mind. This is a bad thing.

Flaws are supposed to be a roleplay thing. You take them for character reasons, not because they aren't going to affect you.
I personally prefer flaws to either be randomised, or to be not worth it, unless you have a specific character idea in mind and are actually taking it to be characterful.

[Saph]

They're not utterly broken, but they're a major power boost in exchange for a trival cost that encourage one-trick-pony characters; melee characters taking a penalty to ranged attacks, ranged characters taking a penalty to melee attacks, etc. I don't allow them when DMing.

And no, they do not help lower-tier characters any more than they help higher-level ones. One of the standard builds in the Neverending Dungeon is the DMM persist cleric that can persist about 3 spells at level 1, and flaws are an integral part of that. Ditto for arcane builds that use a bunch of metamagic feats and reducers.

[Boci]

And no, they do not help lower-tier characters any more than they help higher-level ones. One of the standard builds in the Neverending Dungeon is the DMM persist cleric that can persist about 3 spells at level 1, and flaws are an integral part of that. Ditto for arcane builds that use a bunch of metamagic feats and reducers.

The confusion might stem from the fact that it is often said higher tier classes do not need feats as much as lower tier classes.



Flaws are supposed to be a roleplay thing. You take them for character reasons, not because they aren't going to affect you.
I personally prefer flaws to either be randomised, or to be not worth it, unless you have a specific character idea in mind and are actually taking it to be characterful.

But as others have pointed out, if you have the flaw shacky, doesn't it make sense to not focus on ranged combat?

[Karuth]

We not only allow flaws in our games, we encourage players to take at least one. Simply because it makes the characters much more remindable from others. Choosing flaws should be because of what makes most sense for the character and not what is most profitable for the build.

But usually the flaws come in paired with the feats and you need a good backstory to explain why you have it. In general if you take flaws that don't come up often, our DM only counts them as half a feat (at best) and you need two weak flaws to get one feat (or you only get a 'weak' feat, like a feat that is mainly for flavour).

For example: In a group only consiting of rogues, I decided to make a dwarven rogue. And since he's an old battlefield veteran (though without ever gaining levels), he has an old wound that slows him down (to 15 speed). But all his life as mercenary has made him tough and resilient (he got DR/2-).
Since he can't run away he learned to simply tough it out.

And so far it has proven to be an interesting character, that is strong but not overly powerful. He slows the group down when speed is of essence, but saved the group's butt more than once when things went differently than planned.

[Boci]

For example: In a group only consiting of rogues, I decided to make a dwarven rogue. And since he's an old battlefield veteran (though without ever gaining levels), he has an old wound that slows him down (to 15 speed). But all his life as mercenary has made him tough and resilient (he got DR/2-).
Since he can't run away he learned to simply tough it out.

Nit pick: Wouldn't that flae halve a dwarf's speed of 20ft to 10ft?

[Saph]

The confusion might stem from the fact that it is often said higher tier classes do not need feats as much as lower tier classes.

That's true, from a certain point of view . . . but you can just as easily use those extra feats to pull off some incredibly deadly combos with full casters.

[Kurald Galain]

I see meaningful flaws for a wizard character.
Meaningful character flaws for roleplaying, sure.

Meaningful mechanical flaws so that he can take one more powerful feat, no.

Flaws can be used for character diversity the way Karuth describes - but to be used that way, they don't even need a mechanical benefit. The fact that they do give a mechanical benefit encourages using them not for diversity, but for powergaming.

[Snake-Aes]

Funny thing: People complain flaws are taken in a manner that reduces the penalty's relevance while increasing the gains the most. This is the phenomenon called "minmaxing".

Isn't that what everyone does all the time with standard class features and feats? Or are you guys telling me you all love to have that level 3 wizard with his trusty crossbow "not use true strike because it's cheating"?

As far as the concept of character building goes, Flaws are no different than anything else already being used. Complaining "flaws let you take -2 in melee when you'll never melee anyway to get more metamagic" is like complaining that "wizards aren't investing in strength because they can cast freedom of movement".
----

As far as the power of an extra feat goes, I couldn't care more. Cheesy builds don't need it to be cheesy, and I doubt anyone will complain about getting another feat. The flaw itself can be rubbed in every other day and many a player would love to add such things to their characters' personality.

[Boci]

That's true, from a certain point of view . . . but you can just as easily use those extra feats to pull off some incredibly deadly combos with full casters.

Obviously. Full casters do not need feats because their class features are enough to carry them along. That does not mean extra feats aren't as big a power boost for them as they are for a paladin.

[Karuth]

Nit pick: Wouldn't that flae halve a dwarf's speed of 20ft to 10ft?

Slow as a flaw is handled as -5 to speed (in our games).
The reason for that is, that if you are slower than an average member of your species you can't catch up or run away from someone of the same species regardless if you are 10 or 5 ft slower.
Similar reasoning for a bonus to speed. So we houseruled that speed increases/decreases are worth exactly the same since their effect is the same.
(We play without a grid or anything though, so distances are guessed in most cases anyway. It might make more difference on a playing board.)

[Saph]

Funny thing: People complain flaws are taken in a manner that reduces the penalty's relevance while increasing the gains the most. This is the phenomenon called "minmaxing".

As far as the concept of character building goes, Flaws are no different than anything else already being used. Complaining "flaws let you take -2 in melee when you'll never melee anyway to get more metamagic" is like complaining that "wizards aren't investing in strength because they can cast freedom of movement".

If you look at the point buy system, you'll notice there are limits on how low you can drop a stat. There is a reason for this. Once you've chosen to dump a stat, you get very little penalty from dumping it further. Adding flaws that weaken an area you're already terrible at is double-dipping; you get two sets of benefits for the price of one. It probably won't break the game if it's not broken already, but there's a reason theoretical optimisation builds use flaws whenever possible.

[Kurald Galain]

Isn't that what everyone does all the time with standard class features and feats? Or are you guys telling me you all love to have that level 3 wizard with his trusty crossbow "not use true strike because it's cheating"?
The difference is that a wizard casting a low-level spell from the wizard list is simply using his class features; whereas a character taking a flaw that doesn't actually hinder him is using a loophole to take a benefit without paying the cost for it.

Of course it is a sliding scale; but most DMs have a cut-off point beyond which they'll start veto'ing character options. For instance, many DMs will ban the PHB polymorph spell, or the nightstick, or the sarrukh.

[Boci]

Of course it is a sliding scale; but most DMs have a cut-off point beyond which they'll start veto'ing character options. For instance, many DMs will ban the PHB polymorph spell, or the nightstick, or the sarrukh.

What did they say in the Test of Spite? "Any mentioning of the sarrukh should be followed by a home address"?

[Snake-Aes]

I find it lovely that you guys quoted exactly different bits of my post =P

My point remains though: conceptually, flaws are no different than other things everyone is already used to accept, like alternate class features.
They are obvious increases in power because if they weren't, no one would have a reason to take them.
Not even for roleplay. If you want to roleplay a feebleminded character, you just go and roleplay one, mechanical effect or not.

[lesser_minion]

Personally, I don't mind flaws, although they do break completely with some of the principles underlying the game (loosely, be seriously careful when dealing with this sort of thing).

Forcing the player to pick a flaw that directly mitigates the benefit might be an improvement, but it doesn't really make sense for feats, since most of them don't really have different aspects that could be tweaked.

As for the question about broken flaws, Hunted is probably the worst flaw out there, but it's unofficial so it's unlikely to ever see play. The disadvantage is that the DM incorporates your character's backstory into later adventures (i.e. something she was probably going to do anyway). That's considered so crippling that you also get +2 to a bunch of skills in addition to the bonus feat.

[potatocubed]

Yes. Flaws in D&D are fundamentally broken for this reason: they let you take a penalty for something you don't want to do in the first place, to gain a bonus for something you want to do all the time. This brokenness applies to most RPG systems that contain "flaws".

This is truth.

In the HERO system, a game I personally loathe, there is nevertheless a useful bit of advice for the GM on disadvantages (flaws by another name): "A disadvantage that isn't a disadvantage isn't worth any points."

If someone in HERO takes an Enemy (Hugely Powerful, Always Present) that enemy will show up in the game and make their lives miserable. Their friends and family will suffer horribly, unless the hero does something to save them. You got bonus points for it, and now you get to reap what you sow.

In D&D, a wizard's noncombatant flaw will (almost) never show up in game because the wizard avoids melee like the plague.

The key difference here is that the disadvantages in HERO are outside the player's control. The GM can ensure that they come back to haunt you in an appropriate fashion. The flaws in D&D are within the player's control, and so their effects on gameplay can be mitigated or eliminated.

Alternatively you could adopt a system similar to Mutants and Masterminds: every time one of your flaws becomes a problem (like a code of honour, or a vulnerability to silver) you get a hero point. If you choose an esoteric flaw that never arises, no hero point for you. If you choose 'vulnerable to bullets' you'll probably pick up loads.

Again, D&D flaws just give you a flat bonus (free feat) regardless of whether or not the flaw ever comes into play.

You'd be better off just giving out a free feat or two at character gen.

[Saph]

Another point:

People keep saying that extra feats help melee characters more than they help casters. I'm not sure this is true.

Compare an unoptimised Fighter 10 with a moderately well-built Wizard 5/Random Arcane Prestige Class 5.

The Fighter has 10 free feats. The Wizard has 5 free feats, minus whatever he had to spend to meet the prerequisites for Random Arcane Prestige Class. So probably more like 4 free feats.

If we add flaws, the Fighter goes from 10 to 12 free feats, while the Wizard goes from 4 to 6 free feats.

Now who's actually benefiting more from that? I'd say the Wizard is. The Fighter already has a ton of feats; while he can always use more, he'll have grabbed the ones he really wants already. The Wizard, on the other hand, has just seen his number of available feats go up noticably. Furthermore, if the wizard's player is better than the fighter's player, he's going to pick more powerful feats anyway. So overall, I'd expect to see the power disparity go up, not down.

[Tytalus]

People keep saying that extra feats help melee characters more than they help casters. I'm not sure this is true.


The Fighter is just one of the melee classes; others don't get nearly as many feats.

[Boci]

The Fighter is just one of the melee classes; others don't get nearly as many feats.

But even a decently optimized paladin cannot do as much with extra feats as a wizard can.

[DemLep]

I would have to agree that the flaws aren't broken, but can help create broken build. The DM should defiantly have a say in what flaws can be taken and what feat can be gained by it to help minimize the brokenness.

More than that I think a good DM can counter any broken character anyways. I have had to DM for players known for there broken builds and bad role playing on a number of occasion. I just make in game situations that take away there advantage as soon as they annoy me and make them think of how they are going to get out of the situation. Likely for me the other players normally help in not trying to help the player out.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, unless you are in a small group.

-4 to spot and listen? who cares? We have a ranger...

-6 to initiative? who cares? We have a rogue...

In smaller groups the chances of getting caught off guard and subsequently ganked become high enough to make even the most used flaws dangerous.
With larger groups there is at least someone who rolls high.

-6 to init always sucks. A significant percentage of time, this will mean the mobs go before you do in init order. Given the short length of combat in D&D, every round is a significant factor. So you're always trading off power with this.

I find people often underestimate the tradeoffs of min-maxing. Crappy spot and listen? Reduces chances of acting in surprise rounds. Getting a good alpha strike off is one of the most effective ways to flatten encounters quickly.

Flaws make more specialized builds possible, but it's not a serious threat to balance. All players do get the feats.

[1stEd.Thief]

I agree with the previous poster(s) who mentioned other (non 3.x) systems in which the general rule is: no penalty, no bonus.

In other words: If your non-combatant arcane type takes feeble or vulnerable, flaws which will rarely effect them, they get some crappy feat that will rarely effect them (Toughness?)

If a rogue takes inattentive or poor reflexes, then they can get any feat(s) they want.

[CyMage]

The problem with how balanced flaws are between different classes taking them is not in the flaws themselves but the classes. I'm sure most people here are familiar with the class tiers.


Unless you're playing a pure combat version, D&D is still a Roleplaying game. As I pointed out a couple times, since flaws can only be taken at level 1, it means that usualy your character had them for most of their life and was able to compensate for them in other ways.

For example my eyesight isn't the greatest anymore, I'm sure if I was drafted to the Army I wouldn't be trained to be a sniper. It's a meaningful flaw after years of reading and staring at computer screens. This flaw has allowed me to gain quite a bit of useful knowledge though.

[PId6]

But even a decently optimized paladin cannot do as much with extra feats as a wizard can.
I disagree with this. Good paladin builds can be are incredibly feat-heavy, and paladins don't get any bonus feats by default. Wizards have more powerful feats in the absolute sense, but that's because they're more powerful to begin with (an extra 8th level spell slot > anything paladin can do simply because 8th level spells are awesome, for example). However, in relative comparison, two feats can make a huge difference on the playability of a paladin, while two feats for a wizard isn't really going to change much since he can dominate anyway.

[Boci]

I disagree with this. Good paladin builds can be are incredibly feat-heavy, and paladins don't get any bonus feats by default. Wizards have more powerful feats in the absolute sense, but that's because they're more powerful to begin with (an extra 8th level spell slot > anything paladin can do simply because 8th level spells are awesome, for example). However, in relative comparison, two feats can make a huge difference on the playability of a paladin, while two feats for a wizard isn't really going to change much since he can dominate anyway.

I guess it depends on whether or not metamagic reducers are allowed.

[JaronK]

I disagree with this. Good paladin builds can be are incredibly feat-heavy, and paladins don't get any bonus feats by default. Wizards have more powerful feats in the absolute sense, but that's because they're more powerful to begin with (an extra 8th level spell slot > anything paladin can do simply because 8th level spells are awesome, for example). However, in relative comparison, two feats can make a huge difference on the playability of a paladin, while two feats for a wizard isn't really going to change much since he can dominate anyway.

Except that a Wizard with two more feats at level 1 can enter some of the big power PrCs 6 levels early. Are you sure that Wizard isn't going to change much? I'd argue that a SCM/Incantrix is more powerful than just an Incantrix by a LOT.

Of course, if what you're saying is just that a pure Incantrix is so broken anyway that nobody cares if you add SCM just to be annoying, then that's reasonable.

JaronK

[PId6]

I guess it depends on whether or not metamagic reducers are allowed.
Again, that's merely a boost of Infinity -1 to Infinity, much like the DMM cleric's two Extra Turnings. You can build a perfectly powerful meta-reducing wizard/cleric without the flaws; flaws only make them slightly better. Ultimately, they're dominating no matter what. Meanwhile, for a paladin, the two feats can mean the difference between useless and playable, which is a much more significant change IMO.


Of course, if what you're saying is just that a pure Incantrix is so broken anyway that nobody cares if you add SCM just to be annoying, then that's reasonable.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Yeah, in the absolute sense, Incantatrix/SCM is much more powerful than just Incantatrix. However, unless you're playing in the highest realms of rocket tag, SCM won't noticeably add to the Incantatrix's power compared to flaws for paladin because he's already dominating everything anyway.

[JaronK]

Yes. Flaws in D&D are fundamentally broken for this reason: they let you take a penalty for something you don't want to do in the first place, to gain a bonus for something you want to do all the time. This brokenness applies to most RPG systems that contain "flaws".

So you believe a Fighter taking Mage Slayer is broken, because he takes a penalty to his non existant caster level? I don't buy it.

JaronK

[Kylarra]

Mage Slayer is a feat, not a flaw though. :smalltongue:

What he's saying is that, fundamentally, flaws are broken because they don't end up being flaws. For the majority of applications, if you can pick your flaws, you'll choose flaws that don't impact anything you care about and just take your free bonus feat(s). When the point of a flaw is to provide a reasonable drawback, in the vacuum of RAW, flaws fail utterly at what they are purported to do.

[DragoonWraith]

I think Flaws are a really stupid mechanic.

I think characters should get more Feats than they do. Flaws are one way, which isn't so awful, to achieve that.

[Thiyr]

Mage Slayer is a feat, not a flaw though. :smalltongue:

What he's saying is that, fundamentally, flaws are broken because they don't end up being flaws. For the majority of applications, if you can pick your flaws, you'll choose flaws that don't impact anything you care about and just take your free bonus feat(s). When the point of a flaw is to provide a reasonable drawback, in the vacuum of RAW, flaws fail utterly at what they are purported to do.

Honestly, the only four flaws I see that don't provide reasonable drawbacks are the two attack roll flaws, vulnerable, and arguably frail. Other than those four, each flaw will have a distinct drawback during gameplay. If that drawback never comes up because the DM never makes it come into play. In expected situations, flaws won't impact anything you care about, yes. That is why they say that in the section on flaws. The flaws are there for the -abnormal- fights that -aren't- going according to plan. Or maybe its a penalty to stuff that wasn't cared about because they were prepared to suck. Nobody is going to do the oposite of what they were trying to specialize in. Unless that melee fighter is honestly torn about choosing noncombatant as a flaw or not, he will be finding some justification elsewhere about why he doesn't care about the flaw (I've got a strong fort save and a high con, -3 to fort saves won't hurt too bad). And in most situations, it won't be. Until the fort save or suck hits him and that 15% makes the difference. This seems to me like a "reasonable drawback", so I'm not seeing flaws "fail utterly". I'm just seeing noncombatant, shaky, vulnerable, and frail fail utterly.

[Tytalus]

But even a decently optimized paladin cannot do as much with extra feats as a wizard can.

That's an entirely different point though, even if it were true.

[Boci]

That's an entirely different point though, even if it is true.

No, it is part of the debate of who benefits more from extra feats. If metamagic reducers are allowed the caster gains more from extra feats.

[Tytalus]

No, it is part of the debate of who benefits more from extra feats. If metamagic reducers are allowed the caster gains more from extra feats.

It's is part of the general debate, but has nothing to do with my reply to Saph (which you quoted and are thus obviously referring to), who made an entirely different point.

[Boci]

It's is part of the general debate, but has nothing to do with my reply to Saph (which you quoted and are thus obviously referring to), who made an entirely different point.

Saph's point was that casters can gain just as much if not more from extra feats, and I cited metamagic reducers as an example of that.

[Tytalus]

Saph's point was that casters can gain just as much if not more from extra feats, and I cited metamagic reducers as an example of that.

Her reasoning was that melee characters have more feats already, not that the melee feats are worth less than caster feats. That reasoning was faulty (citing the fighter, a special case), which I pointed out. Your argument is an entirely different one (and debatable at that, see PId6's reply) and had nothing to do with my reply to Saph's point, even if it's for the same basic claim.

Edit: but perhaps we shouldn't sidetrack the discussion any more

[Boci]

Her reasoning was that melee characters have more feats already

You sure? In the one example she used she happened to pick the one melee class that gets the mosts feats, but I'm not sure if that was her argument.

[true_shinken]

Extra bad at melee is not a meaningful flaw if you were never going to be good at melee in the first place.

Yup. DMG even explicitly mentions this in the 'creating new classes' section.



We not only allow flaws in our games, we encourage players to take at least one. Simply because it makes the characters much more remindable from others. Choosing flaws should be because of what makes most sense for the character and not what is most profitable for the build.
Use traits. They are flaws, except they work.

[Thiyr]

Use traits. They are flaws, except they work.

How don't flaws as a system do what they are intended to do?

[Boci]

How don't flaws as a system do what they are intended to do?

They were not meant to be a power boost since the flaw was suppose to balance out the feat I guess. And on that I agree with true_shinken. However I view the flaw system as a falvourful power boost, so I like them better than traits.

[true_shinken]

They were not meant to be a power boost since the flaw was suppose to balance out the feat I guess.

Exactly. Nice to agree with you for a change ^^

[Boci]

Exactly. Nice to agree with you for a change ^^

You did quote me just as I was editing but I do agree the flaw system does not work as intended. As a DM though I don't mind my PCs taking flaws that have little to no impact on their character's role, but then they shouldn't be suprisedif all major NPCs do the same.

[PId6]

I think characters should get more Feats than they do. Flaws are one way, which isn't so awful, to achieve that.
Heh, better than taint at any rate. :smalltongue:


As a DM though I don't mind my PCs taking flaws that have little to no impact on their character's role, but then they shouldn't be suprisedif all major NPCs do the same.
I agree with this. As a DM, I like flaws/extra feats because they let me customize the NPCs/monsters more as well. Ultimately, the power boost to the PCs is balanced by the enemies having the same, and everyone has more options to build more interesting characters.

[Thiyr]

They were not meant to be a power boost since the flaw was suppose to balance out the feat I guess. And on that I agree with true_shinken. However I view the flaw system as a falvourful power boost, so I like them better than traits.

If that was their intent, then I would agree that yes, there was no possible way that they would be able to succeed at their goal. However, I do still disagree overall, for two reasons.

1) I personally see more evidence that they were intended to be a power boost with an additional cost rather than not being a power boost, largely in the (by now extremely referenced) "players will choose flaws that have the least impact and the feats which have the greatest impact" bit.

2) Traits do the same thing that feats do, with less variable effects. Where flaws let you choose the benefit and drawback and don't have them tied together, traits tie them together in some thematically apropriate way. While this makes it more predictable, if you intend to, say, pump your diplomacy through the roof and intend to put nothing into intimidate, you lose nothing by taking Polite. Quick lowers your hitpoints, but if you're a fighter, you have hitpoints to spare more often than not, and if you're a rogue you didn't have all that many hit points to begin with, and getting hit will be hurting you pretty hard either way. The "abuse potential" is lower because you have fewer options available, but if the issue is getting a boost in power, it has the same issue, just on a different magnitude. The biggest problem for me, then, comes from individual flaws and traits being bad more than the system itself, but ymmv

Edit: @PId6:


I agree with this.
This.

[Boci]

If that was their intent, then I would agree that yes, there was no possible way that they would be able to succeed at their goal. However, I do still disagree overall, for two reasons.

1) I personally see more evidence that they were intended to be a power boost with an additional cost rather than not being a power boost, largely in the (by now extremely referenced) "players will choose flaws that have the least impact and the feats which have the greatest impact" bit.

You are seriously over estimating WotC's ability to know how the material they publish will impact the game. They intended wizards and clerics to be primarily blasters and healbots respectivly.
It has been a long time since I checked the exact introductory text to flaws, but IIRC, it suggests WotC did not intend them to be a power boost.

[Saph]

I think Flaws are a really stupid mechanic.

I think characters should get more Feats than they do. Flaws are one way, which isn't so awful, to achieve that.

It depends on the feats. If it's something like Quick Draw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, or Eschew Materials, then yes, I agree players should get them much more cheaply.

On the other hand, if we're talking about feats like Leadership, Divine Metamagic, or Arcane Thesis, I don't think players need any more of those than they've got already.

The problem with Flaws is that some people are going to spend their extra feats on the first type, and some are going to spend them on the second . . . and Flaws seem to have been balanced against the first type.

[Thiyr]

Oh, I know that wizards had no idea how flaws would be affecting gameplay balance, hence why there are flaws that are just bad design (see: noncombatant). reading the intro to flaws, however, seems to hammer home a few points.

Flaws have larger impacts than a corresponding feat would, ex:You get a -6 to init when improved init gives +4. Flaws are entirely negative. There is no upside to choosing a specific flaw. Flaws give you a bonus feat beyond what a character can normally get. In the section on creating new flaws (which they needed to pay more attention to themselves), they state two more important things. That one should be careful when making new flaws, as they can, quote, "unbalance the game", implying that if a flaw is too weak, the power gained is too much. That flaws are bigger in magnitude because players will minimize what they lose from flaws and will maximize what they gain from them.

From this, the only real conclusion I can draw on their motives is that you are supposed to pay for the bonus feat with the flaw, but the player will do their best to make sure the feat is worth more than the loss from the flaw. I would be willing to compromise, however, and say that wizards had no idea of the -degree- of power boost they were giving, even if they were aware of what they were giving.

Edited for formatting. Wall of text = ouch.

[Philistine]

You are seriously over estimating WotC's ability to know how the material they publish will impact the game. They intended wizards and clerics to be primarily blasters and healbots respectivly.
It has been a long time since I checked the exact introductory text to flaws, but IIRC, it suggests WotC did not intend them to be a power boost.
As it happens, we can check that out anytime we like - and very quickly, too. Since it's, you know, included in the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm) and all.

Back already?

Good. Now then... What part of "players always choose flaws that have the least impact on their characters, while taking feats that have the most" is it that's unclear, exactly?


It depends on the feats. If it's something like Quick Draw, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, or Eschew Materials, then yes, I agree players should get them much more cheaply.

On the other hand, if we're talking about feats like Leadership, Divine Metamagic, or Arcane Thesis, I don't think players need any more of those than they've got already.

The problem with Flaws is that some people are going to spend their extra feats on the first type, and some are going to spend them on the second . . . and Flaws seem to have been balanced against the first type.

That's still not a problem with Flaws, as such. It's certainly a problem with Feats, and their wildly differing relative values; and it's possibly a problem with Players, and their varying levels of willingness/ability to optimize.

Point of interest: Leadership has Character Level 6 as a prerequisite, and Arcane Thesis requires 9 ranks in Spellcraft. Dragging those into the discussion seems a bit meh, since nobody's going to be picking those up on the cheap with a Flaw.

[potatocubed]

I see your quote, and I raise you "A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role." from the next bullet point down.

Since there are flaws you can take which have almost 0 impact on your selected class or role, they fail at their own explicitly stated design goal.

EDIT: To expand. I think that Wizards accepted that players would mitigate their flaws as much as possible, which is why the numerical penalties are generally steeper than the bonuses of equivalent feats, but I don't think they quite understood just how much mitigation could be done.

[Thiyr]

And I agree with you, potato, those specific flaws fail at that task. However, to take the failure of those specific flaws and to expand it to the system as a whole is what I take issue with. Hence why my big issue with flaws is that they didn't publish more of them.

[Saph]

That's still not a problem with Flaws, as such. It's certainly a problem with Feats, and their wildly differing relative values; and it's possibly a problem with Players, and their varying levels of willingness/ability to optimize.

Point of interest: Leadership has Character Level 6 as a prerequisite, and Arcane Thesis requires 9 ranks in Spellcraft. Dragging those into the discussion seems a bit meh, since nobody's going to be picking those up on the cheap with a Flaw.

You're leaving out the context of what I was replying to. DW said that characters should get more feats. My answer: depends on the feats. Low-powered feats, yes. High-powered feats, no.

There's always going to be a huge range in power with feats; it's inevitable with so many of them and it's not going to go away. Simply giving players extra feats doesn't help power differences and exacerbates them if anything, since the players with more skill or working off more powerful builds will pick more and more powerful feats to boost up their characters further.

Finally, there's the arms race issue; since stock Monster Manual critters and pre-made NPCs don't have flaws, this means that as the DM you're going to have to power up the enemies to match the PCs, rather than just using them out of the book. I'm always dubious about any optional rule that requires the DM to do more work unless I can see a clear way that it's going to make the game more fun for the players.

[Boci]

I'm always dubious about any optional rule that requires the DM to do more work unless I can see a clear way that it's going to make the game more fun for the players.

Free feats have a tendancy to do that I hear. At least with the players I know.

[Saph]

Free feats have a tendancy to do that I hear. At least with the players I know.

Giving characters free feats makes them more complex and more powerful. There's a difference.

[true_shinken]

Free feats have a tendancy to do that I hear. At least with the players I know.
Lots of players, specially casual players, don't care about 'more power'. That's the point Saph is adressing - flaws could increase the power gap.

[Boci]

Giving characters free feats makes them more complex and more powerful. There's a difference.

Not neccissarily. As you said, not all players will take the most powerful feats. Even a casual gamer would probably apreciate an extra feat, they just wouldn't use it in the same way an optimizer or powergamer would.

[Thiyr]

You're leaving out the context of what I was replying to. DW said that characters should get more feats. My answer: depends on the feats. Low-powered feats, yes. High-powered feats, no.

There's always going to be a huge range in power with feats; it's inevitable with so many of them and it's not going to go away. Simply giving players extra feats doesn't help power differences and exacerbates them if anything, since the players with more skill or working off more powerful builds will pick more and more powerful feats to boost up their characters further.

Finally, there's the arms race issue; since stock Monster Manual critters and pre-made NPCs don't have flaws, this means that as the DM you're going to have to power up the enemies to match the PCs, rather than just using them out of the book. I'm always dubious about any optional rule that requires the DM to do more work unless I can see a clear way that it's going to make the game more fun for the players.

While it may be for another discussion entirely, I stick to my longstanding opinion that the only reliable way to deal with power differences amongst players is having mature players.

As for the arms race issue, I (in my admittely limited experience) haven't seen flaws as a factor for me or those I have seen run games in terms of their encounter design. more typically, they do the same thing regardless of player composition or house rules in effect. They tailor the encounters to the player's capabilities, or they make an encounter without regard to specific capabilities. Flaws increase capabilities, but if the monsters were going to be messed around with anyway, the flaws add no extra work to the equasion. If you're taking the time to fine-tune to the depth of individual flaws, then I admit I wouldn't expect anyone to go that far into making a good encounter. But otherwise, I don't see flaws adding much extra work, while I do see them improving a players fun if it allows them to get the feats they need for what they're trying to do in a reasonable timeframe.

Ultimately, while I agree with your premise that people need more low-powered feats more than more high-powered ones, I don't see a good way of doing that, and in order to help the people who need low-powered feats in order to get to the stuff that makes them work, I see flaws as a reasonable method to let them have a good time.

[Curmudgeon]

-6 to initiative? who cares? We have a rogue...


-6 to init always sucks. A significant percentage of time, this will mean the mobs go before you do in init order.
I think you're missing the reasoning behind the point here. The stealthy Rogue is going to be your point person most of the time. In the surprise round the Rogue's Spot (and maybe Listen) would generally keep them from being surprised, and Combat Reflexes (which is required to enter Shadowdancer) allows the Rogue to make AoOs on all the enemies that try to move past to get at the squishy casters. So having the mobs go first gives the Rogue a lot more hits whenever there's a passage 15' wide or less (the case in most dungeons). So, as Escheton says, who cares? Going later is better for the Rogue here, as the number of AoOs they can take resets when they act. With high DEX boosting initiative, despite a penalty there's still going to be someone on the enemy side that the Rogue can catch flat-footed with their hand crossbow for the single surprise round regular attack, and flat-footed = sneak attack. But the Rogue will get a lot more attacks from AoOs.

In later rounds the Rogue will frequently Delay until some studly melee type gets into a flanking position. Going first = no sneak attack; waiting = sneak attack. So, again, who cares about an initiative penalty? We have a Rogue ─ and that's good for the whole party.


An init penalty isn't particularly bad from the spellcaster perspective, either. If the Wizard has higher Initiative, does that help much? In the surprise round it's going to be a matter of Spot and/or Listen checks ─ WIS-based, cross-class skills. So the Wizard isn't going to get to go anyway. After that the Wizard has Nerveskitter, and Spell Compendium has this erratum:
“Unlike other immediate actions, you can cast this spell while flat-footed.” The Cleric has Sign, which is even better than Nerveskitter because it can be cast in advance rather than require an immediate action. So the casters have workarounds. There's not much negative pressure on that suckitude.

[Philistine]

You're leaving out the context of what I was replying to. DW said that characters should get more feats. My answer: depends on the feats. Low-powered feats, yes. High-powered feats, no.

There's always going to be a huge range in power with feats; it's inevitable with so many of them and it's not going to go away. Simply giving players extra feats doesn't help power differences and exacerbates them if anything, since the players with more skill or working off more powerful builds will pick more and more powerful feats to boost up their characters further.
I'm leaving nothing out; you're simply missing the point that neither of the issues you're complaining of here is a problem with Flaws. Flaws can potentially exacerbate existing problems with game and/or player imbalance, but no more than that. They can just as well help rectify problems with game imbalance, allowing weaker classes (who generally also are required to take weaker feats as prerequisites before getting to The Good Stuff(TM), whatever that may constitute for their class/build) a shot at making up a little ground on their more powerful buddies. And as others have repeatedly pointed out, most of the really disgusting tricks don't actually require a lot of Feats: they rely a handful of Feats that synergize well (Shock Trooper + Leap Attack), or on a single Feat (Natural Spell), or on none at all (be a Wizard).

Plus, honestly - if the Fighter player is picking Toughness and Skill Focus: Craft (Underwater Basketweaving) as the bonus Feats from his Flaws, while the Cleric is piling on Extra Turnings to fuel her DMM:Persist (which she can get at level 1 even without Flaws), then nothing in the world is going to help that poor schmuck. On the bright side, though, the Fighter player in that case may very well not notice, recognize, or indeed care how badly he's being outclassed in his designated role, so it's all gravy.


Finally, there's the arms race issue; since stock Monster Manual critters and pre-made NPCs don't have flaws, this means that as the DM you're going to have to power up the enemies to match the PCs, rather than just using them out of the book. I'm always dubious about any optional rule that requires the DM to do more work unless I can see a clear way that it's going to make the game more fun for the players.
"Stock MM critters and pre-made NPCs" also typically come loaded with low-powered Feats. This means that if players are optimizing to any degree whatsoever, the arms race is already on, and you have to rebuild enemies anyway (at least, you do if you expect to challenge a group of PCs who are even marginally competent). So throw in a Flaw+bonus Feat combo or two into the mix at the same time you're redoing the rest of the Feats...

Or, you know, don't bother unless you just want to. Because gems like Power Attack and DMM aside, the Feats available at level 1 - and thus eligible to be picked up with a Flaw - are mostly weaker prerequisite-type Feats that really and truly don't make characters enormously more powerful. For example, characters can't qualify for Arcane Thesis, or Leadership, or even Leap Attack, any sooner with Flaws in play than they could without them. The question of whether or not you need to "power up" opponents to match the party depends much more on the party than it does on whether or not Flaws were allowed at character creation.

[Saph]

I'm leaving nothing out; you're simply missing the point that neither of the issues you're complaining of here is a problem with Flaws. Flaws can potentially exacerbate existing problems with game and/or player imbalance . . .

. . . which is all that's needed. It doesn't matter whether you label it as a "problem with Flaws" or a "problem with Feats": it's the end result I'm interested in.


They can just as well help rectify problems with game imbalance, allowing weaker classes (who generally also are required to take weaker feats as prerequisites before getting to The Good Stuff(TM), whatever that may constitute for their class/build) a shot at making up a little ground on their more powerful buddies.

In theory, yes. In practice, I've found that it pretty much never happens. Every time I've seen flaws used or recommended, it's in the context of high-optimisation builds, where the extra feats are used to make an already powerful build even more powerful. I have literally never seen someone take Flaws with a low-powered build, because if they're keen enough on optimising to go for flaws in the first place, they're invariably doing it to max out their effective power.


Or, you know, don't bother unless you just want to. Because gems like Power Attack and DMM aside, the Feats available at level 1 - and thus eligible to be picked up with a Flaw - are mostly weaker prerequisite-type Feats that really and truly don't make characters enormously more powerful.

Sorry, but I think you're dead wrong. Two extra feats makes a very noticeable power difference in most builds; I've played characters where the extra feats literally made the difference between life and death. Like I said already, Flaws are unlikely to break a game if it's not broken already, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute.

[potatocubed]

And I agree with you, potato, those specific flaws fail at that task. However, to take the failure of those specific flaws and to expand it to the system as a whole is what I take issue with. Hence why my big issue with flaws is that they didn't publish more of them.

My issue with this is that the flaw system is only as good as the worst flaw written for it. If you've got two flaws in the system which are broken in this way - that is, they are effectively free feats - it doesn't matter if you've got 10 other, balanced flaws or 1000; people are going to gravitate to the broken ones.

To elaborate, I think the problem with the flaw system as a whole is that it requires every flaw to be (more or less) equally meaningful to every character - which they aren't. I think a better example is the M&M flaw system, where the benefits of any given flaw scale with how much the flaw hinders that particular character.

[Tyndmyr]

Not neccissarily. As you said, not all players will take the most powerful feats. Even a casual gamer would probably apreciate an extra feat, they just wouldn't use it in the same way an optimizer or powergamer would.

This is true. It's much like loot. Sure, a casual gamer hasn't already calculated out what the best thing to spend it on is, and likely doesn't know if it'll put him ahead of WBL, but they still get excited over a nice pile of gold.

Personally, I find that casual gamers are the ones most annoyed by having to plan out their feats for PrC prereqs. Extra feats kinda helps with that, though it doesn't entirely remove the issue.


I think you're missing the reasoning behind the point here. ...Going later is better for the Rogue here, as the number of AoOs they can take resets when they act. With high DEX boosting initiative, despite a penalty there's still going to be someone on the enemy side that the Rogue can catch flat-footed with their hand crossbow for the single surprise round regular attack, and flat-footed = sneak attack. But the Rogue will get a lot more attacks from AoOs.

This makes no sense. You can always delay init when it is advantageous to do so. Going later will sometimes be a disadvantage. Therefore, it is ALWAYS a disadvantage to have a higher init modifier.

And the fact that you can offset a penalty with other bonuses does not make it not a penalty. Someone blowing a spell and swift action in the first round of every combat to mostly offset the flaw? Yeah, that's a penalty.

Enough of a penalty that there isn't a single character build I would ever take the -6 init flaw on, because I've never actually made a character for whom taking actions was not important. Now, -1 AC, there's a flaw that might not matter much for some builds. Course, as an untyped penalty, it applies to everything, which is annoying, but hey, it's a relatively small penalty. AC is frequently overvalued in D&D.

[Zaq]

In low-level games (say, starting at or below level 3 or so), I really appreciate flaws because they help to differentiate characters and get them their chosen tricks sooner. For example, in the level 3 (well, now level 4) game I'm in, one of my friends really wanted to be a Dragonfire Inspiration bard who adds sonic damage (he wanted to, quote, "sing and light people on sonic.") DFI, especially sonic DFI, is admittedly quite powerful, but he's keeping it at a reasonable level (he's happy to be doing 2d6 instead of 5d6). Taking flaws allowed him to get the Dragontouched->Draconic Heritage (Howling)->Dragonfire Inspiration combo he wanted and still have room for Melodic Casting (so he could still do other things while singing). Without flaws, this particular character may or may not have ever had the chance to light people on sonic.

I repeat, DFI is by no means a sub-optimal choice for a bard, but it's nonetheless what he wanted to do to have fun. Sure, he's undeniably more powerful right now than a character with a similar build who hasn't gotten to the key parts of his build yet, but I don't think that this is really a bad thing. In a vacuum, paying prereq costs now to be powerful later is not a terrible idea, but at the table, it's not a whole lot of fun to have to sit through often several real-time months of mediocrity while your character just kind of treads water until you unlock your Real Ultimate Power. (It's one thing in, say, a video game, where it's not going to take you an eternity to level up and have your plans come to fruition, but in my experience, tabletop games rarely advance all that quickly. YMMV, of course, but only rarely have I ever seen a build planned out three or four levels in advance actually come to something before the campaign ends or the character dies.) Flaws are one way of getting you doing what you want to be doing faster than you could otherwise, and I approve of that.

Now, I'm not sure that flaws are necessarily the best way to go about doing this, of course. As others have said, if the problem is simply insufficient feats, it may be better to just give the players more feats and not have to go through the charade of, to use the archetypical example, the 8 STR wizard just being SO MUCH WORSE at melee combat (Noncombatant!) that he gets a feat to make up for it... and the default flaws do tend to favor those who have the greatest capacity for workarounds (i.e. full casters, who need the power boost the least, proportionally). That said, they're at least semi-official (variant rules are still rules, even if they're not assumed in place until proven otherwise), so they're easy to translate from group to group, and so they're a relatively easier way of getting any given group to accept the more-feats paradigm than simply saying "hey, um, can I have some free feats?" At least flaws give us a framework to use. It'd be nice if we didn't need them, but at least it's a start.

As I see it, until you get to the very limits of things, almost anything you can build with flaws you can build without flaws. Flaws just let you do it faster, which means that you're more likely to see your nifty build in actual play, which is a good thing. As long as I'm playing nice with my group, I shouldn't have to suffer to "earn" the ability to use a cool trick I found just because my group happens to level up more slowly. If it's a trick that would be allowed at all in the first place, there's no reason that it shouldn't be allowed a few months earlier. (If it's a trick that wouldn't fit with the power level of the group anyway, then you shouldn't be trying to do it, flaws or no flaws.) It's a game, games are meant to be fun, and if flaws let you get to fun parts faster, than so be it.

Of course, it should be mentioned that, as is true for any power option, it's going to benefit savvy players more than casual players, so existing power differences may become more apparent... but that's not the fault of flaws.

[Lans]

I sometimes take the -1 to AC flaw for Dodge. Which is numerically a complete disadvantage.

The other Flaw I take would be the -2 to not my mode of attack one. Its not really a flaw, unless I hit a Snafu.

[Mnemnosyne]

Giving characters free feats makes them more complex and more powerful. There's a difference.
It also allows them to do specific cool things that they want to do. Some of these are powerful, some are less so.

However I can't think of an instance where I wouldn't have more fun if I had a couple extra feats to work with, to get exactly the abilities I want my character to have (or to get them earlier, since one of the least-fun things in my opinion is having a great concept but having to wait for ages in order to finish it so it can actually do what you imagine).

The only exception might be in a game where the characters are ludicrously overpowered anyway, or in which the DM gives us lots of additional power and then doesn't appropriately challenge us. But more feats generally means more fun things that I can do.

[true_shinken]

However I can't think of an instance where I wouldn't have more fun if I had a couple extra feats to work with, to get exactly the abilities I want my character to have

Because you are not a casual gamer.
Casual gamers don't think on the 'specific abilities' they want their character to play. They want to finish filling that boring character sheet asap so that they can start playing.

[Greenish]

Because you are not a casual gamer.
Casual gamers don't think on the 'specific abilities' they want their character to play. They want to finish filling that boring character sheet asap so that they can start playing.I should think there are "casual gamers" who want their characters to do something neat, and the savviest ones of them will figure out that "hey presto, feats allow you to do stuff!"

[Lans]

When it comes to the availability of flaws for spell casters, I think they will put more effort into the optimization of their spells as oppose to the feats.
Doesn't help when the feats are prereqs for incantatrix and what ever.

As oppose to fighters and paladins who don't have other things that they can optimize.

[true_shinken]

I should think there are "casual gamers" who want their characters to do something neat, and the savviest ones of them will figure out that "hey presto, feats allow you to do stuff!"

I've yet to meet one. 'doing something neat' usually involves doing stuff any D&D character can do, but just in a cool way. DMG itself lists the 'grab a chandelier' trick. Most casual gamers simply don't care about the gaming system or the power of their characters. Now and again we see people saying 'my party is horribly optimized'. They are probably casual gamers and simply don't care about 'monk is a tier 5 class' or stuff like that. These people couldn't care less about flaws - they are just another detail they will usually ignore.



As oppose to fighters and paladins who don't have other things that they can optimize.
Race. ACFs. Skills. Equipment. In-combat tactics (should I trip? should I attack? should I charge?).
Yeah, that's a bit more than feats for fighters and paladins to optimize.

[Greenish]

I've yet to meet one. 'doing something neat' usually involves doing stuff any D&D character can do, but just in a cool way. DMG itself lists the 'grab a chandelier' trick. Most casual gamers simply don't care about the gaming system or the power of their characters. Now and again we see people saying 'my party is horribly optimized'. They are probably casual gamers and simply don't care about 'monk is a tier 5 class' or stuff like that. These people couldn't care less about flaws - they are just another detail they will usually ignore.Well, let 'em ignore them then. If you've got people who like to think out their characters in the same table with people who'll happily play goblin commoners, flaws aren't the problem.

[true_shinken]

Well, let 'em ignore them then. If you've got people who like to think out their characters in the same table with people who'll happily play goblin commoners, flaws aren't the problem.

It is because it's giving them more trouble for something they don't want and you are also increasing even more the power gap between casual and non-casual gamers, something that might cause people to think 'I'm useless, I'll learn more about the rules' as likely as it might cause people to think 'I'm useless, I won't play this silly game ever again'.
Flaws increase this kind of problem. They are badly balanced against the feat system, being a free power-up when they are not supposed to be one. They might enlarge the power gap between optimizers and non-optimizers. I dislike'em, simple as that. Of course you are free to enjoy them as much as you want. A matter of opinion.

[Greenish]

It is because it's giving them more trouble for something they don't want and you are also increasing even more the power gap between casual and non-casual gamersExcept that the power gap is in the hands of the "non-casual" gamers (who are those anyway? Professional D&D players?) anyway. If they don't play it nice, banning flaws does exactly nothing, and if they do play nice then flaws aren't going to change anything.

[Edit]: …Anything in regards to balance. They still increase options, especially in low levels.

[Lans]

Race. ACFs. Skills. Equipment. In-combat tactics (should I trip? should I attack? should I charge?).
Yeah, that's a bit more than feats for fighters and paladins to optimize.

True, but wizard also has these.

[FMArthur]

Free feats being more fun is related to the fact that it enables a specialty character to specialize faster. Some builds require a lot of feats to even begin to work, making them almost unplayable until they can get those particular feats. Making a character whose whole schtick, the thing the character practically revolves around, is only accessible at level 9 is going to be just waiting and bearing with it for eight levels of often useless prerequisites. Less specialized builds don't often care, but you try and build a TWF-hand crossbow ninja without flaws, see how many levels it takes you for the idea to function at all.

[Jallorn]

I would say that like much of 3.5, they are abusable, but if used fairly are not broken.

[dspeyer]

Am I the only one who finds extra level 1 feats not very useful? Every build I make seems to depend on feats with prerequisites.

[TooManyBadgers]

Every build I make seems to depend on feats with prerequisites.That's what extra feats are for.

[dspeyer]

That's what extra feats are for.

I meant skill, level or class feature prereqs.

[Math_Mage]

IIRC, PF manages free feats without breaking the game any more than usual (if not PF, the 1 feat/2 levels system is at least a commonly discussed houserule). So I don't see why flaws would be a problem.