About Flaws

[Mightypickle]

Hi!

Some of you might remember that a while ago I registered on this forum, seeking advice on a focused specialist transmuter. We have finally started playing yesterday, and decided to talk about a few rules that each of us intended to use on this adventure. We're all quite unexperienced at D&D, so we feel it's in our best interest to talk about it when someone wants to take something not from the PHB or the Complete series.

I intended to take a flaw (hadn't quite decided on which one, leaning torwards that one with -4 on listen and spot checks), and, as we never used flaws before, I felt it was best to introduce the concept of flaws to the players. We agreed that flaws could be used, but we had to make it coherent with the character. For instance, it would mean nothing for me, as a wizard, to take that flaw which imposes a -2 penalty on meele attacks. As the discussion progressed, we decided that each player that wished to take a flaw would present a few propositions on the next meeting of the group.

Honestly, I quite dislike the flaws present in the Unearthed Arcana. I feel they are mostly too light to be worth a feat. So I was wondering if there is a more balanced list of flaws somewhere. Anyone have an idea?

Anyway, I was thinking that a -1 on CL to one (or maybe two) schools of magic is a balanced flaw. Any thoughts? The groups healbot cleric intends to take a similar flaw. Any sugestion about cool flaws would be welcome.

Also, what is the general view of the forums about flaws? I keep hearing they're unbalanced, but is there a general fix for that, or maybe a better list of flaws? Maybe flaws divided by character class would be better, so that the archer can't take a -2 meele penalty for a feat. =P

[Tim Proctor]

I DM a campaign with Flaws where each player can pick up 2.

I usually instill a roleplaying penalty to it that has a gameplay facet. Example: an fighter, actually a solider who is well verse in combat fortifications so he's maxed out in Craft: Engineering and Knowledge: Engineering. He has a concentration DC 15 (-1 each additional) or focus on an architectural aspect when not in combat. Meaning if he fails his save he looses that rounds action.

It landed his group in hot water once when fighting a golem, he was staring at the golem and not even noticing the fact it was stomping his teammates.

But generally I'm a bigger fan of Traits from UA rather than the Flaws.

[kharmakazy]

There is nothing unbalanced about flaws. They are just a minor penalty for a feat. Whoopty doo.

As for people who don't want to let the wizard take the flaw that makes them worse at melee combat... what is wrong with you? Wouldn't being bad at melee combat make a person more inclined to bury their nose in a book?

[SowZ]

Hi!

Some of you might remember that a while ago I registered on this forum, seeking advice on a focused specialist transmuter. We have finally started playing yesterday, and decided to talk about a few rules that each of us intended to use on this adventure. We're all quite unexperienced at D&D, so we feel it's in our best interest to talk about it when someone wants to take something not from the PHB or the Complete series.

I intended to take a flaw (hadn't quite decided on which one, leaning torwards that one with -4 on listen and spot checks), and, as we never used flaws before, I felt it was best to introduce the concept of flaws to the players. We agreed that flaws could be used, but we had to make it coherent with the character. For instance, it would mean nothing for me, as a wizard, to take that flaw which imposes a -2 penalty on meele attacks. As the discussion progressed, we decided that each player that wished to take a flaw would present a few propositions on the next meeting of the group.

Honestly, I quite dislike the flaws present in the Unearthed Arcana. I feel they are mostly too light to be worth a feat. So I was wondering if there is a more balanced list of flaws somewhere. Anyone have an idea?

Anyway, I was thinking that a -1 on CL to one (or maybe two) schools of magic is a balanced flaw. Any thoughts? The groups healbot cleric intends to take a similar flaw. Any sugestion about cool flaws would be welcome.

Also, what is the general view of the forums about flaws? I keep hearing they're unbalanced, but is there a general fix for that, or maybe a better list of flaws? Maybe flaws divided by character class would be better, so that the archer can't take a -2 meele penalty for a feat. =P

I like flaws, personally, as dnd can be a feat starved game, (you get so few,) but some are important to realize a concept and feat chains are pretty rough, sometimes. So an additional two at character creation helps to mitigate this issue and allows for more unique character concepts. So I never feel the need to make flaws stronger. They are definitely a power boost, yeah, so if ya'll feel it should balance better, (so that NOT taking flaws is still a viable option, if offered,) I can understand.

There are tons of flaw lists and I could even point you to some official ones, (dragon magazine has tons,) but just about every list I know, official and otherwise, makes flaws a better option and hurt characters less. In some cases, the flaws actually offer more mechanical hinderances but since more options means more ways you can pick something irrelevant to your character...

But MOST of the UA flaws are actually pretty harmful already.

Anyway, I still think non combatant is a fair feat for an archer. Sometimes, being ABLE to melee is a good option even if you are better at archery. Not usually, mind you, but sometimes it is preferable. Do ya'll think this flaw should be taken by a melee centric character? Because if a flaw has to be related to the characters primary shtick to be taken, you may as well not introduce them to your game at all. If you want, make the penalty -5 turning last ditch melee, (including situations where you have to hand to hand or have access to a ghost touch sword where arrows are useless or something,) into a really crap option.

The flaws that give a -3 to a save aren't bad, either. That sucks pretty bad. If it still isn't bad enough, up it to -4, I guess? That is a bit harsh, though, I never take the save penalizing flaws as is. Rule that pathetic cannot apply to charisma and it is fine as is, too. Slow is bad enough already. Unreactive is supa' bad and should actually be made a little less harmful to be balanced. -4, I should think. Yes, this is equivalent to improved initiative but improved initiative is a great feat. Honestly, I would be satisfied with a -3 and inability to ever take improved initiative.

Bump shaky up to a -3 penalty, I would say. (Not minus 5 because there are situations where basically everyone wants to make ranged attacks and people not built for it already suck.) Feeble is already pretty bad, (it affects the majority of your skills,) and frail hurts hit points and is close to losing 2 points of con. Perhaps a -1 to fort along with it? Inattentive should apply to more skills. (Sense motive, spot, listen, search, survival, concentration) if you want to increase it's burden. Out of combat penalties should be harsher than in combat ones. Still not harsh enough? Don't increase the list of affected skills and instead pop them with a -2 Initiative. Still not bad enough? Geez, these are mean, but do a -1 initiative in addition to the extra skill penalties.

Murky eyed is pretty meh as a flaw, yeah, maybe the character should have to bump their vision down, (from dark to 60' low light, from low light 60' to 30', from low light 30' to standard,) or take a -5 to spot in low light conditions if you already have standard vision?

Now, people with think twice before taking a flaw but it still can be worth it even if it will cause pain.

[eggs]

The way D&D approaches flaws makes them naturally accommodating to min-maxing - if the player chooses the character's job, the character's flaw and the character's reward for the flaw, there's no incentive to make the flaw relate to the character's job in any way.

Even with your example, Illusion and Divination rarely use CL, and Transmutation and Conjuration don't mind a 1-level hit too badly.

What might be worth trying is taking a page from FATE's book, and providing metagame rewards for the players using their weak abilities at all. To do that with 3e, make players choose a penalty without providing a bonus feat. These penalties should be big enough to hurt: -4 to ranged/melee attacks, -4 to a save, -10 to a skill roll, -4 DC for attack spells from a specific school. But when the players deliberately bring those abilities into play in stressful situations (when they wouldn't be able to take 10), give the player an action point (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/actionPoints.htm) [dropping the free metamagic]. Maybe limit it to 1 point earned per encounter, don't give players action points for anything beside calling on the flaw, and put a cap on the number of points stockpiled at a time equal to 1/2 the character's ECL.

I'm not sure how that would work, but I think the keys to making character flaws behave less like a min-max freebies is to cut the major benefits from the character-generation stage, and enact minor bonuses during the actual gameplay.

[Curmudgeon]

For instance, it would mean nothing for me, as a wizard, to take that flaw which imposes a -2 penalty on meele attacks.
You would essentially be excluded from all touch attack spells with Noncombatant, because with your poor BAB and the penalty, an opponent with decent DEX and deflection bonus would be close to untouchable. That doesn't "mean nothing"; it's a handicap. You can certainly work with that constraint by choosing different types of spells, but that's how flaws are supposed to work. When your party comes up against melee attackers in the fog (a perfectly reasonable encounter, for which your DM should incur no grief) you might regret your choice.

[Slipperychicken]

I see Flaws as a rules-legal way to give out more feats. You get way too few feats in DnD, especially for a fighter-type. If anything, feat-scarcity encourages one-trick ponies and helps widen the power gap between casters and non-casters (Casters don't derive their power from feats, and don't benefit as much from more feats. Non-casters do, and need lots of feats to be effective for many fighting styles).

If you want, you can demand that Flaws be in some way relevant to the character in question, whether by adversely affecting him mechanically, or to support/introduce a character trait. I was going to play a character who slaughtered Goblins in a genocide, but later realized the horrors he committed. His sleep was so tortured by nightmares that he tossed and turned all night, and woke up each morning exhausted and sweating from a full nights sleep (he had the Insomniac flaw). Flaws can help support some roleplaying opportunitys, although it depends greatly on the group.

[planswalker]

You would essentially be excluded from all touch attack spells with Noncombatant, because with your poor BAB and the penalty, an opponent with decent DEX and deflection bonus would be close to untouchable. That doesn't "mean nothing"; it's a handicap. You can certainly work with that constraint by choosing different types of spells, but that's how flaws are supposed to work. When your party comes up against melee attackers in the fog (a perfectly reasonable encounter, for which your DM should incur no grief) you might regret your choice.

there are all sorts of spells to fix that "attack bonus" problem. The -2 won't matter in the long run on those spells.

[Andorax]

I usually ask that the player have a thematic, logical link between their chosen flaw and the feat they're getting out of it.

Phantom Sparks for Spell Focus (Evocation)

Inattentative for Combat Casting

That sort of thing.

[Tytalus]

You would essentially be excluded from all touch attack spells with Noncombatant


That seems to be a bit of an overstatement. It's merely a 10% lower chance to hit.

Given that touch attacks are rather easy to do successfully (and get progressively more easy at higher levels since the average MM monster's touch AC goes down with increasing CR), that tends to be a small penalty.

Of course, it doesn't seem wise for a wizard to be relying too heavily on being in melee range of his opponents anyway (gishes excluded, but those wouldn't choose that feat in the first place).

[SSGoW]

The way I see flaws, at least by fluff is..

I take non combatant and my character sucks at melee attacks. That is the exact reason I became a wizard or an archer. If I physically can't do something and I'm gifted in another area (non combatant flaw for say point blank shot feat) then I will want to be ranged focused so I can do the best I can. Hell maybe I hate melee and bloodshed so I shoot blunt arrows to knock ppl out?

Kind of like... If I want to be in the olympics someday and I'm a terrible thrower of everything (say shot put) but I'm fast as the wind. Do I become a runner or a shot put thrower? My flaw helps push me to something I'm great at.

And besides the way 3.5 works it won't really hurt much to let someone take a flaw they never use since they probably won't use that skill or whatever anyways. Even without the penalty to seach and spot the fighter isn't seeing much -_-.

[Synovia]

There is nothing unbalanced about flaws. They are just a minor penalty for a feat. Whoopty doo.

As for people who don't want to let the wizard take the flaw that makes them worse at melee combat... what is wrong with you? Wouldn't being bad at melee combat make a person more inclined to bury their nose in a book?

Giving wizards free feats sounds like a great idea.

Flaws are supposed to be bad enough that they're worth a feat. Your character isn't supposed to come out more powerful, hes supposed to come out different.

[Tyndmyr]

Giving wizards free feats sounds like a great idea.

Flaws are supposed to be bad enough that they're worth a feat. Your character isn't supposed to come out more powerful, hes supposed to come out different.

These are often the same thing.

Is a 10% lower chance of hitting with a touch attacks a really big deal? Not particularly, but it's pretty reasonably priced when compared against the cost of improving the same thing. And fluff-wise, it makes sense that you'd specialize in what you're good at.

Mechanically, it helps all classes roughly equally, as feats are good for basically everyone.

[Unusual Muse]

Consider, too, that that -2 to hit is going to hurt the caster more than the fighter, because if a caster is in a position where they need to make a melee attack, it probably matters way more that they hit, whereas the fighter can afford to miss more than the caster. Casters have crappy BAB, and fighters have good BAB... when all is factored in (and with good feat selection), that -2 is probably going to be small potatoes for the optimized fighter. So ultimately, it can all balance out.

[Tyndmyr]

Consider, too, that that -2 to hit is going to hurt the caster more than the fighter, because if a caster is in a position where they need to make a melee attack, it probably matters way more that they hit, whereas the fighter can afford to miss more than the caster. Casters have crappy BAB, and fighters have good BAB... when all is factored in (and with good feat selection), that -2 is probably going to be small potatoes for the optimized fighter. So ultimately, it can all balance out.

Realistically, the fighter isn't taking the -2 to melee feat. If he's a sword guy, he's probably looking at the -2 to ranged. Or the negative to his already abysmal will save. Or the dwarven defender is taking the land speed reduction.

It's something all the classes can benefit from. This is expected behavior.

[Curmudgeon]

That seems to be a bit of an overstatement. It's merely a 10% lower chance to hit.
That's bad arithmetic. If the Wizard needed to roll a 14 or better to hit (7 numbers), a -2 penalty would make that 16 or better (5 numbers), which is 2/7 or a 28.6% lower chance to hit. You approach 5% per penalty point against very easy targets (2 or better to hit -> 4 or better = 11.1% lower hit chance), but that's the best case.

[Doug Lampert]

That's bad arithmetic. If the Wizard needed to roll a 14 or better to hit (7 numbers),

Then he doesn't take spells that need a melee touch unless he's using a familiar to deliver them or making them ranged.

Seriously, logic that STARTS with the caster moving into melee to cast a "needs a 14 to hit" spell says the player is already not interested at all in being effective.

If he wants to be effective, that "flaw" hurts him quite a bit LESS than toughness or weapon focus rays or skill focus "something nearly irrelevant" would help him.

[Tyndmyr]

Then he doesn't take spells that need a melee touch unless he's using a familiar to deliver them or making them ranged.

Seriously, logic that STARTS with the caster moving into melee to cast a "needs a 14 to hit" spell says the player is already not interested at all in being effective.

If he wants to be effective, that "flaw" hurts him quite a bit LESS than toughness or weapon focus rays or skill focus "something nearly irrelevant" would help him.

I would not take that flaw on ANY char in return for toughness.

[Bakkan]

Doesn't it make sense that a person with a flaw would choose a profession/career/fighting style that would avoid that feat? If I'm growing up and I'm always nervous and uncoordinated when throwing or shooting things (shaky flaw, -2 to ranged attacks), then I'm going to avoid that sort of thing as much as possible and choose a career that involves hitting things in melee or some such thing. It appeals to my sense of verisimilitude. I particularly dislike the systems that provide out-of-character rewards for in-character stupidity (i.e., deliberately creating a situation in which your flaws are going to become relevant).

Adding flaws to your game will never decrease the character's potential power unless you require them to take flaws and require them to take flaws that will hinder them more than the feat gained will help them. They are additional options, and additional options can never result in a decrease in power.

I enjoy flaws because I find the rate of feat acquisition in 3.5 to be quite slow. I think I prefer the flaw system even to Pathfinder's system of "a feat every odd level" because it adds more decisions and hence customizability to the character creation process ("Should I take a flaw or shouldn't I?" "Which flaw should I take?" "Which feat should I take?" "How many flaws should I take?").

[Curmudgeon]

Doesn't it make sense that a person with a flaw would choose a profession/career/fighting style that would avoid that feat? If I'm growing up and I'm always nervous and uncoordinated when throwing or shooting things (shaky flaw, -2 to ranged attacks), then I'm going to avoid that sort of thing as much as possible and choose a career that involves hitting things in melee or some such thing.
Yes, it makes sense. But there's an obvious limit to how much you can avoid some situations. Unless you're living your life exclusively in confined spaces, constantly avoiding being in line of sight of a ranged attacker is going to be tough to accomplish. If you go outside and suddenly find yourself being pelted by arrows from 400' above, a career dedicated to hitting things in melee will not work out so well for you.

Conversely, if you specialize in ranged attacks, constantly avoiding confined spaces is also going to be tough to accomplish. If you pick a flaw, and try to avoid situations where that flaw matters, you're occasionally going to feel pretty useless when you find such situations unavoidable. Or if you specialize in save-or-die/save-or-suck targeted spells, going into battle in the fog where you don't have any targets until they're in melee range will be a problem for you. That's the way flaws work: they're situationally disadvantageous, and those situations aren't always avoidable.

[Craft (Cheese)]

My problem with flaws is they give more complexity to the game without really making it all that much more interesting. If you can take flaws, you should always take as many flaws as you possibly can because the benefit you can get from a feat is always better.

That said though, I still allow them for all the other reasons put forth in this thread (free feats helping out non-casters, etc.). They're bad design, but they're a patch for an even worse design.

[Zaq]

I see it like this. Basically, 3.5 just plain doesn't give you enough feats, especially at lower levels. I believe the game is pretty much directly improved by giving out more feats. Yes, it's an increase in power, but there are very few things that you could do with two extra feats that you couldn't ever do without them . . . with very few exceptions, the feats you get from flaws just let your fun stuff come online faster. Oh, and they help you differentiate your characters a lot sooner, which is a good thing.

If, as a GM, you would allow the player to have access to a given feat combo or PrC in the first place, it will only rarely make a big difference if it's allowed to happen relatively early in the PC's career. Meanwhile, the player will be happy, since he gets to use his fun trick that he planned for his character to have sooner, instead of the "suck now, awesome later" style that characterizes so much of 3.5 if you're not careful.

Why not just give out free feats, then? Honestly, I'd be in favor of that, but a lot of GMs feel more comfortable using something from WotC (even if it's a variant ruleset) than just saying "oh, by the way, you get two additional feats at level 1." It gives us a common RAW ground to deal with extra feats. Minimizing the impact a flaw has on your character is even explicitly expected in Unearthed Arcana, and that's OK. If I ever GM 3.5 again (caveat: I have no plans to do so, because I'm terrible at GMing, and I'd probably move to Legend anyway), I'd strongly consider just giving out feats anyway, with no dancing around pretending that flaws are a fair trade. They're not. They're not supposed to be. They're just something we can use to give and get free feats in a semi-RAW manner. And that's OK.

That said, my current GM hates flaws and only allows them if the character concept absolutely requires them (for example, if you need two first-level-only feats and a nonhuman race to make the concept work), and that's his choice. I feel like we'd be better off with flaws, but not to the extent that I'm willing to argue about it. I would probably take enough issue with, for example, rolled stats instead of point-buy to try to actively persuade him to reconsider, but I don't feel that strongly about his choice to disallow flaws.

[Malimar]

Something occurs to me: A race that, as a racial feature, allows you to take more than the usually permitted number of flaws. What would that be like, power-wise?

[The Random NPC]

I would say that it is about on par with human, since it roughly equates to a free feat.

EDIT:Now if it let you take, say 3 extra flaws, it would be much more powerful than a human. But one extra? About human.

[planswalker]

Something occurs to me: A race that, as a racial feature, allows you to take more than the usually permitted number of flaws. What would that be like, power-wise?

granting bonus on a variant rule? strange.