PDA

View Full Version : Fun Trait for Roleplaying (3.5, PEACH?)



NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 12:25 AM
Lisp
You speak with a strange lisp that some people find cute, but it can backfire in the most unpleasant ways.
Prerequisite: Able to speak
Detriment: You speak with a strange lisp. You take a -2 penalty on all Charisma-based checks that require speaking (most do), and if you cast a spell with verbal components, there is a 10% chance your spell will fail. Your speech is so laughable that you take an additional -2 penalty to your Intimidate checks, for a total of -4.
Benefit: Everyone, friend or foe, seems to relax around you, and let their guard down, showing their true nature. You receive a +4 bonus on all Sense Motive checks.

Reluctance
2011-07-19, 12:38 AM
It works, but only because 10% spell failure on everything with a V component will quickly spoil a caster's fun. The other two are fluff that are irrelevant on 99% of characters, and won't be picked by the 1% that it would apply to.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 12:44 AM
It works, but only because 10% spell failure on everything with a V component will quickly spoil a caster's fun. The other two are fluff that are irrelevant on 99% of characters, and won't be picked by the 1% that it would apply to.

Well, bards are arcane casters. But good, I'm glad it works.

Domriso
2011-07-19, 12:46 AM
Ha! I like this one. It's fun and actually has a pretty negative aspect. It would be fun to play.

Cipher Stars
2011-07-19, 12:59 AM
Heavy flaw. :/
I wouldn't eva' take it for just 1 feat. Flaws can have special bonuses btw, its just usually 1 feat. Some heavy flaws have special benefits or just give 2 instead.

Reluctance
2011-07-19, 01:14 AM
A bard who does a lot of singing/orating, or one who's the party face, simply won't take the flaw. And come to think of it, a flat failure chance on skill checks is somewhat questionable design. Better to improve the penalty to -4 or -6. Making everybody burst into laughter 20% of the time could do some odd things with Countersong and the like.

In fact, I'd be tempted to turn this into an all-purpose speech impediment flaw. Simple, decently built, and prevents someone from making a facepalm of a flaw when they want to play a character with tourettes.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 01:15 AM
A bard who does a lot of singing/orating, or one who's the party face, simply won't take the flaw. (And on that note, actually, a flat failure chance on skill checks is somewhat questionable design. Better to improve the penalty to -4 or -6. Making everybody burst into laughter 20% of the time could do some odd things with Countersong and the like.)

In fact, I'd be tempted to turn this into an all-purpose speech impediment flaw. Simple, decently built, and prevents someone from making a facepalm of a flaw when they want to play a character with tourettes.

Fair enough. I'll alter it to "Bard Level One" to be clearer.

Reluctance
2011-07-19, 01:29 AM
Dude, it's a well-balanced flaw for any caster. (Again, assuming the performance penalty becomes a penalty rather than a flat failure chance.) Trying to tweak it so it can only be taken by the characters it smacks the hardest just means that nobody will take it at all. That, broadly applicable things tend to be more fun and interesting than narrowly applicable ones.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 01:31 AM
Dude, it's a well-balanced flaw for any caster. (Again, assuming the performance penalty becomes a penalty rather than a flat failure chance.) Trying to tweak it so it can only be taken by the characters it smacks the hardest just means that nobody will take it at all. That, broadly applicable things tend to be more fun and interesting than narrowly applicable ones.

It's not about balance, it's about the fun roleplaying aspect of it. Besides, making it bard-only ensures that the arcane caster isn't just using it to get a free Silent Spell that would get around it anyway. Flaws aren't balanced if you can easily counter them.

Domriso
2011-07-19, 02:01 AM
I tend to agree with Reluctance. It's a fun flaw, but if it only hits Bards, it's kind of annoying. I mean, I can think of a lot of other characters that could be fun to play with a lisp, even if they don't have arcane magic, and still have it be a meaningful drawback.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 02:05 AM
I tend to agree with Reluctance. It's a fun flaw, but if it only hits Bards, it's kind of annoying. I mean, I can think of a lot of other characters that could be fun to play with a lisp, even if they don't have arcane magic, and still have it be a meaningful drawback.

I can't. Please enlighten me. What other classes would have a serious, mechanical drawback from a lisp?

Domriso
2011-07-19, 02:11 AM
Diplomats, for one. Almost all their skills involve talking, and a -2 penalty, while not huge, is something (I would increase it to a -3 or -4 penalty myself, especially if you got rid of the 20% flat chance of failing Perform checks).

Additionally, an easy way to make it more dangerous to all sorts of a players is to make the penalty also apply to Use Magic Device checks. While not necessarily obvious, the idea behind Use Magic Device is that you're essentially randomly attempting to activate it, using common phrases, actions, thoughts and the like that are used as magic item triggers. Phrases are right in there, and a lisp would make it harder to use.

If you really wanted to be mean, you could have the drawback also have a penalty just for being understood by certain people (maybe make it a stage two drawback? Hm...).

So, I guess my "lot of characters" applies mostly to variants of diplomats. I tend to run/play in very combat-lite games, where being able to speak is a very important skill. Being looked down on as dimwitted or 'cute' could be a serious disadvantage in such a game. Plus, the arcane spell failure chance just makes it worse for arcane casters.

Cieyrin
2011-07-19, 07:04 PM
I don't see why only casters can have lisps. I'd love to run a lisping Marshal whose troops smirk and giggle when he gives out commands, till they get dropped for their poorly concealed laughter, anyways. :smallamused:

Charisma skills are like in the top 2 skill stats, so I think it's still a useful flaw if you aren't a bardic dandy. Think of the Intimidating Barbarian, who gets angry when his idle threats bring quivers of suppressed laughter instead of quivers of fear. Think of the RP value!

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 07:09 PM
I don't see why only casters can have lisps. I'd love to run a lisping Marshal whose troops smirk and giggle when he gives out commands, till they get dropped for their poorly concealed laughter, anyways. :smallamused:

Charisma skills are like in the top 2 skill stats, so I think it's still a useful flaw if you aren't a bardic dandy. Think of the Intimidating Barbarian, who gets angry when his idle threats bring quivers of suppressed laughter instead of quivers of fear. Think of the RP value!

I agree, but flaws are tricky. They need to be worth a feat. They need to affect combat, because that's what feats usually improve.

Domriso
2011-07-19, 07:29 PM
Ah, I keep forgetting that the normal flaw system grants a feat. I use flaws as the opposite of traits, which I got by adapting the Pathfinder trait system. Less powerful than feats, so they don't need to be as powerful.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-19, 07:30 PM
Charisma skills are like in the top 2 skill stats, so I think it's still a useful flaw if you aren't a bardic dandy. Think of the Intimidating Barbarian, who gets angry when his idle threats bring quivers of suppressed laughter instead of quivers of fear. Think of the RP value!
They're still shaken! But only because they're laughing too hard to fight effectively.

I agree, but flaws are tricky. They need to be worth a feat. They need to affect combat, because that's what feats usually improve.

Inattentive affects combat? Feeble doesn't affect attack rolls or hit points. Noncombatant and Shaky can be worked around easily.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 07:41 PM
They're still shaken! But only because they're laughing too hard to fight effectively.


Inattentive affects combat? Feeble doesn't affect attack rolls or hit points. Noncombatant and Shaky can be worked around easily.

Inattentive influences surprise rounds, Feeble drops one of your ability scores by 2 (which is a pretty harsh flaw), and Noncombatant and Shaky both directly affect your combat ability, even if you can work around them.

Additionally, Vulnerable affects your AC, Slow cuts your Move Speed in half, and Frail lowers your hit point per dice by 1. Penalizing a couple of circumstantial skill checks doesn't add up to granting a feat.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-19, 07:51 PM
Inattentive influences surprise rounds, Feeble drops one of your ability scores by 2 (which is a pretty harsh flaw), and Noncombatant and Shaky both directly affect your combat ability, even if you can work around them.
So you'll accept Innattentive because of surprise rounds, but you won't accept Lisp even though it affects intimidate and diplomacy?

Feeble doesn't reduce an ability score by two, that's pathetic. Feeble imposes -2 on all ability and skill checks using a physical stat, which doesn't include attack rolls.

Additionally, Vulnerable affects your AC, Slow cuts your Move Speed in half, and Frail lowers your hit point per dice by 1. Penalizing a couple of circumstantial skill checks doesn't add up to granting a feat.

I didn't mention those because they directly affect combat. I was pointing to the ones that don't.

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 08:10 PM
So you'll accept Innattentive because of surprise rounds, but you won't accept Lisp even though it affects intimidate and diplomacy?

Feeble doesn't reduce an ability score by two, that's pathetic. Feeble imposes -2 on all ability and skill checks using a physical stat, which doesn't include attack rolls.

I didn't mention those because they directly affect combat. I was pointing to the ones that don't.

Feeble makes you worse at resisting grapple, bull rush, trip, overrun, disarm and sunder attempts, and also penalizes your initiative checks. Inattentive is indeed a strong flaw, but it is alone in its penalizing skill checks. Every other flaw works against you in combat, therefore making you weaker. And while making a Spot or Listen check can prevent you from being flat-footed, the only Charisma-based skill checks that have any combat use are Use Magic Device (which is limited to too few classes to merit a all-encompassing flaw) and Intimidate, arguably, though the DC is high and the effect is minimal.

Hiro Protagonest
2011-07-19, 08:18 PM
Feeble makes you worse at resisting grapple, bull rush, trip, overrun, disarm and sunder attempts, and also penalizes your initiative checks. Inattentive is indeed a strong flaw, but it is alone in its penalizing skill checks. Every other flaw works against you in combat, therefore making you weaker. And while making a Spot or Listen check can prevent you from being flat-footed, the only Charisma-based skill checks that have any combat use are Use Magic Device (which is limited to too few classes to merit a all-encompassing flaw) and Intimidate, arguably, though the DC is high and the effect is minimal.

So using Pathetic to reduce your charisma by two is hurting your combat ability?

NeoSeraphi
2011-07-19, 08:36 PM
So using Pathetic to reduce your charisma by two is hurting your combat ability?

If you qualify for Pathetic (which requires your total ability modifiers, from all six of your ability scores, to be +7 or less before you reduce one of them by two) you're already not gonna be very good at combat. Say you spread it as evenly as possible. That's 14 in two of your combat stats, and 16 in the last one, then you're taking an 8 in your dump stat. So you really do need a feat to be effective, if your stats are that low.

Other flaws you didn't mention (all of whom are very specifically combat-weakening): Meager Fortitude (-3 to Fort saves), Weak Will (-3 to Will Saves), Poor Reflexes (-3 to Reflex saves), Murky Vision (roll for miss chance twice, if you miss either time your attack misses), Unreactive (-6 penalty to Initiative checks)

Now, the SRD guidelines even cite my flaw as weak on both accounts: A flaw that is restricted to a certain class won't matter if someone multiclasses, and a flaw that penalizes Charisma checks specifically is also unbalanced. So I need to think about this...

Edit: Made it a trait. There, now it's much better and encompasses all classes.