Flaws

[Invader]

Are there other official flaws listed someone other that UA? If there are, can someone point them out and what are everyone's thoughts on the least taxing of the flaws. And given that some are obviously geared toward melee and some are geared towards spell casting, which ones are least taxing overall?

[KillianHawkeye]

I believe the only other source for Flaws was some issues of Dragon Magazine, but I have no idea which ones.

[Venusaur]

Complete list here. (http://www.realmshelps.org/cgi-bin/featsform.pl)

Murky-Eyed is generally considered to be a good flaw.

[Aegis013]

It's my personal opinion that the least taxing flaws of the official flaws I'm aware of (UA pg. 91) are Murky-eyed with runner ups of Shaky, Noncombatant, and Vulnerable, depending on character/build.

Murky-eyed provides you a significant disadvantage any time you encounter an enemy who utilizes concealment. The issue here is that most of the DM's I've played with and myself in the past, before I joined and frequently perused this forum, utilize concealment for their antagonists/encounters highly infrequently. This flaw is excellent because it rarely comes up. If/when it does, it can cause some problems though.

Secondly, Shaky/Noncombatant/Vulnerable can all be excellent choices. If you are a battlefield control/support Wizard, you can safely take Noncombatant without worry. You're rarely going to need to make a melee attack. At most a ranged touch attack for a ray might be called for, but even in the situation where you find yourself depleted of spells and in melee with another enemy, you're (assuming a reasonable level of system mastery and choosing tactically advantageous moves rather than saying "Well, my wizard has never been in a fist fight, he's going to panic and act a bit less intelligently than his ability score might suggest" which is also a reasonable thing to do imo) probably more likely to 5' step backwards and fire your crossbow at them than swing your quarterstaff, assuming you even carry one.

Shaky for the same reason on a character who does not have proficiency with bows or who might not own or be interested in owning a crossbow. A "I (try my best to) kick their faces in" Monk probably would have no penalty across his entirety of his being played from taking this.

Finally, Vulnerable is really not a significant factor most of the time. If you aren't attempting to optimize your AC anyway, because for example, you're the Wizard previously mentioned, it might not matter to you if things have a 5% better chance of nailing you. Your sleet storms and greases will keep them at bay, and if they get close you can still Abrupt Jaunt or a plethora of other escape tactics. If you are optimizing your AC, and you're good at it, you can likely get over 50 relatively easily, the +/- 1 probably won't make all the difference, but it certainly doesn't make too much sense to take Vulnerable if you are optimizing AC.

[Invader]

Complete list here. (http://www.realmshelps.org/cgi-bin/featsform.pl)

Murky-Eyed is generally considered to be a good flaw.

I saw the feat list but not a flaw list, unless I was looking in the wrong place.

[VGLordR2]

I saw the feat list but not a flaw list, unless I was looking in the wrong place.

The flaws are interspersed throughout. Use Ctrl+F.

In my opinion, UA flaws are imbalanced. The penalty is too little for the benefit. I personally like to look through the list of flaws on the D&D Wiki. Yes, it's all homebrew, but most of it introduces cool roleplay and more balanced penalties.

[Invader]

I think I like inattentive first followed by murky eyed.

[Invader]

The flaws are interspersed throughout. Use Ctrl+F.

In my opinion, UA flaws are imbalanced. The penalty is too little for the benefit. I personally like to look through the list of flaws on the D&D Wiki. Yes, it's all homebrew, but most of it introduces cool roleplay and more balanced penalties.

Thank you, that makes it much easier lol.

And I've seen that list and there's actually quite a few on there that seem like they could be a lot of fun but I'm not sure if my DM would let me use them.

[Manly Man]

I personally don't know of any other place for flaws that's official, although there are some definitely good ones that can be played for an immensely fun role-playing experience if you don't mind them being homebrewed. Here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Arachnophilia_(3.5e_Flaw)) are (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Aurophobia_(3.5e_Flaw)) a (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Compulsive_Maniacal_Laughter) couple (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Dracophilia_(3.5e_Flaw)) of (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia_(3.5e_Flaw)) my (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Incontinence_(3.5e_Flaw)) absolute (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Large_Ham_(3.5e_Flaw)) favorites (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Limp-Wristed_(3.5e_Flaw)).

[Acanous]

I remember seeing a flaw where you take -6! to Use Magic Device checks, which is sometimes annoying, but generally a good trade.

[Invader]

I remember seeing a flaw where you take -6! to Use Magic Device checks, which is sometimes annoying, but generally a good trade.

Not if I'm using the flaws in conjunction with an artificer lol.

[Invader]

I personally don't know of any other place for flaws that's official, although there are some definitely good ones that can be played for an immensely fun role-playing experience if you don't mind them being homebrewed. Here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Arachnophilia_(3.5e_Flaw)) are (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Aurophobia_(3.5e_Flaw)) a (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Compulsive_Maniacal_Laughter) couple (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Dracophilia_(3.5e_Flaw)) of (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia_(3.5e_Flaw)) my (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Incontinence_(3.5e_Flaw)) absolute (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Large_Ham_(3.5e_Flaw)) favorites (http://dandwiki.com/wiki/Limp-Wristed_(3.5e_Flaw)).

I' love to play an artificer with aurophobia lol.

[Andion Isurand]

There are some useful flaws in Dragon Magazine 326 pg 91.

My favorite is Divine Gestures, which makes it so your divine spells have a failure rate with armor/shields like arcane spells do... useful in situations where you don't plan on wearing armor anyway.

[Andorax]

Some thoughts on flaws:


As already mentioned, they're in UA and an assortment of Dragon Magazines (almost, but not entirely, exclusive to the "Class Acts" section in the back).

The issues were 324 (Bards, Druids and Paladins), 325 (Barbarians), 326 (Clerics), 327 (Sorcerers), 328 (Nonhumans, "nobody's perfect" article), 329 (Rangers), 333 (Wizards), and 330 (Commoners, April issue). Note that these flaws aren't exclusive to their respective classes, they're just recommended for (and in some cases align well pre-requiste wise with) them.


If you want to take the least taxing flaws, technically the Commoner Flaw XP Farm is about as good as it gets (Effect: You are worth 10 times the normal XP for a creature of your CR).


That aside, I find that Cautious (Effect: You must spend twice as long performing any skill that requires an action, -2 to initiative) as fairly reasonable. In practice, I see Love of Nature (Effect: Will save DC 12 to attack animals, plants and vermin) as being a popular choice. There's others that are fairly mild, but usually come with pre-requisites as well (quarter-elf for half elves that takes away a couple of their lesser class features, Arcane Conundrum for Gnomes takes away their SLAs and gives them a penalty to illusion saves).


Andion Isurand, I have a cleric of Desna in my current campaign who took Divine Gestures, and also picked up Free-Spirited (the weight of any gear you carry counts double towards your load). It's made for an interesting combination and very fitting.



While I've not rigidly enforced it, I generally ask that my players associate their choice of a flaw with the corresponding feat they take. Shakey, for example, can be paired with a Weapon Focus in a melee weapon.

[Andion Isurand]

In the build for the character used as my username, Still Spell is the feat taken for the Divine Gestures flaw, as part of a 1 level cloistered cleric dip. Even though this dip is made later on in the build and the flaw isn't gained until then, I made sure the feat selected for the flaw had no prerequisites.

[willpell]

I came up with a pretty neat idea for a Flaw today. Anyone remember Doyle on the show "Angel"? (I will say nothing more lest I spoiler.) I was thinking of him and the Clairsentience powers, and I thought it would be neat to have a psion whose powers activate themselves sometimes, resulting in the "migraines with pictures" Doyle describes, or similar effects. Here's a rough draft.

Flaw: Automatic Overchannel
When you take this flaw, choose a psionic power you know with a range of Personal. Once per day, the DM may roll a D20; if the result is less than or equal to your character's level, the power activates itself at no power point cost to you, as if it were manifested with the Overchannel feat (even if you do not have that feat). As a result, you take 1d8 damage and the power's manifester level is increased by 1. This damage cannot reduce your hit points below 0.

[prufock]

I like the idea of flaws, but personally I find their execution a bit lacking. It's pretty much a given that the only flaws you are going to take are those that are NOT important to your character, and that the feats you take in return are going to be VERY important to your character. So despite the fact that the mechanical penalties of flaws are slightly higher than comparable bonuses from feats... let's be honest, it's almost like getting free feats. You're getting something for (next to) nothing.

[willpell]

Well I'm somewhat okay with almost-free feats, just because the game starves you for feats to a very painful extent. Although I would probably frown on a player who takes Murky-Eyed and a similarly painless flaw for his Wizard/Archivist or Druid/Energy Ardent or whatever, and then spends the feats on things like Practiced Caster/Manifester. I look for the flaws to be added value in and of themselves, making the character more interesting by giving him some limitations to struggle against and overcome, possibly earning bonus XP for the greater challenge.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

1. The Dragondex (http://www.aeolia.net/dragondex/) and go to the master index.
2. Scroll down and find the alphabetical listing for "Flaws" or just type Ctrl-F.
3. The second to the last column is the Dragon issue number (page number) where the article can be found.

Flaws for Barbarians: 325 (93)
Flaws for Bards: 324 (98)
Flaws for Clerics: 326 (91)
Flaws for Commoners: 330 (87)
Nobody's Perfect (racial flaws): 328 (40)
Flaws for Druids: 324 (93)
Flaws for Paladins: 324 (96)
Flaws for Rangers: 329 (95)
Flaws for Sorcerers: 327 (93)
Flaws for Wizards: 333 (94)

[Andorax]

prufock, if the door is left wide open then yes, you're correct. On the other hand, if the DM has some discussion/veto power over which flaws are taken (noncombattant wizard, for example) and is willing to find creative ways to work the flaw into the storyline in unexpected ways, it's not so bad.

[Sutremaine]

I think I like inattentive first followed by murky eyed.
Inattentive is great when your Spot and Listen checks are already rubbish and none of your level-advancing classes have it as a feat. Dumping your Spot check to the point where you're unable to stop yourself walking into a Gelatinous Cube (without a stick, anyway) is probably a risky move, but even before that the Arcane Hierophant could do better on a 0 than I could have on a 20.

[Philistine]

It's not "pretty much a given" that players will pick Flaws that have the least possible impact on their characters - that's the expected usage of the mechanic, as explicitly spelled out in a sidebar in the same book where they were introduced! (Thus making this one of the rare cases where we really do know what RAI is, because we have Word of God confirmation within the text that yes, the net effect is supposed to be a power boost.)

[prufock]

It's not "pretty much a given" that players will pick Flaws that have the least possible impact on their characters - that's the expected usage of the mechanic
I'm not really sure why you think these 2 phrases are contradictory.


Well I'm somewhat okay with almost-free feats, just because the game starves you for feats to a very painful extent.
I feel this way sometimes, but I think that's just me being greedy and wanting everything. I was building an artificer today and found myself thinking "20 feats just aren't enough!

[Alleran]

I was building an artificer today and found myself thinking "20 feats just aren't enough!
That's what they invented the Elder Evil Dark Chaos Shuffle for, isn't it?

[willpell]

I feel this way sometimes, but I think that's just me being greedy and wanting everything. I was building an artificer today and found myself thinking "20 feats just aren't enough!

I'm not a powergamer at all, and I tend not to put much effort into shopping for feats whenever I get one, I'll just be like "hm, guess I'll get a Skill Focus or Improved Initiative or something". But I strongly believe that no class should ever have any dead levels, and almost all of the non-spellcasting classes do have levels at which nothing significantly changes about them. Dragon Shaman 2 is the absolute worst that I know of, but Binder 6 is pretty awful too, and Incarnate has at least one where all it gains is like one lousy essentia, Paladins have a bunch of them, Rangers at 3 get nothing but Endurance (any time your BAB goes up it's not bad per se, but it's not much for an entire level either)...anyway, I've been debating giving some of those atrocious levels a bonus feat from a small list, as one possible fix for how boring they are, without making them too over-the-top either (a problem that I have with a lot of homebrew I've seen, it just throws too much stuff at you all at once, when all you really need is one really nice thing instead of a pile of marginally useful stuff).

[willpell]

The flaws are interspersed throughout. Use Ctrl+F.

There are only six Flaws findable with Control-F; the majority of them are either absent or unlabeled (Murky-Eyed for instance is listed, but it doesn't say "flaw" next to it on the list, you have to click on it and it says "flaw" in the popup).

[Tekren]

My personal Fav Flaw for clerics is unreactive (-6 to initative).

.. I usually don't play super-high op.

[willpell]

My player floated the idea of his ICF Cerebremancer having that one; I said I'd think about. Since he's not really a combat character it's a pretty strong choice, plus it's in-flavor, but I don't want him to end up dead when combat does break out, nor be bored because the fight always ends before he gets a turn.

[Invader]

The whole reason I asked was in fact because I was building an artificer and personally I think it is a really feat starved class especially if your DM follows actual crafting rules for time/money/xp and doesn't hand wave things like crafting time.

A couple "free" feats go a long way in helping to to balance some issues most classes have.

[Philistine]

I'm not really sure why you think these 2 phrases are contradictory.

It's not so much that they're contradictory as it is that "pretty much a given" doesn't state the case strongly enough.


SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm)

Flaws are generally bigger in magnitude than feats. That's because players always choose flaws that have the least impact on their characters, while taking feats that have the most.

So, Wizard with Noncombatant? Yes! Melee brawler with Shaky? Absolutely! That's the intended use! Vehemently as some might wish to disagree, it's actually spelled out in black and white.

[willpell]

So, Wizard with Noncombatant? Yes! Melee brawler with Shaky? Absolutely! That's the intended use! Vehemently as some might wish to disagree, it's actually spelled out in black and white.

I think "always" in the sidebar was intended to be slightly hyperbolic; the tone of the sidebar was not that of rules text per se, but more like a commentary on gamer culture, a la the newsposts on each Darths and Droids comic. The designers weren't really saying they wanted players to take zero-effect flaws, just that they figured it was inevitable they would if given the chance.

Personally, the first RPG I ever played was the superhero game Champions, and in that they have a wonderful little rule that says "A limitation that doesn't limit the character isn't a limitation". If you get extra character points by taking a Disadvantage or reduce the cost of your power by putting a Limitation on it, the DM is obligated to make sure that the disadvantages come up in the course of play, so that the player didn't get those extra points completely for free.

Since then I've mostly been a WOD player; Champions is actually kind of at the halfway mark between the "old school" of D&D and its clones, where a certain "players vs. DM" attitude tended to prevail; the DM was expected to present a world that seemed to have a life of its own and the players were just there to explore it, so he was expected to be fair-handed and (after a fashion) realistic; having every character show up with poison just because the character took the Poison Vulnerability flaw would seem like persecution, but it could also be a matter of enforcing game balance. In the modern age more games have gone the WOD route, often more than WOD itself, and made Rule of Drama king; the point of having those poison-wielders show up isn't to punish the player for minmaxing, but rather to create dramatic tension by having the character forced to deal with his weakness. It's like using Kryptonite in Superman stories; Superman is too powerful, so sometimes you can only tell an interesting story by targeting his achilles' heel (and IMO what really makes him or any other superhero a hero is his willingness to do the hero thing even when he becomes vulnerable).