Flaws, flaws, flaws

[laeZ1]

Are there actual debilitating flaws out there? It wasn't until about a year ago that I came across any. At first I thought the player in question was making things up, then he showed me the ones he saw online (homebrew... I wasn't pleased) the flaws he wanted his character to have seemed more like merits than anything else (have small junk and wield bigger weapons for free, plus a free feat), born blind (blindsense, plus three free feats), and then some that downright wouldn't affect him at all (penalties on ranged attacks as a close-range brawler), or my personal favorite "Hatred of Drow"... grey elves already hate drow.

So, in my game, I banned flaws. Seeing some of the builds presented here, it seems like flaws are much more accepted than I expected them to be. I'd like help compiling a list of actual debilitating flaws, or if there are some that I should really watch out for, and lastly, I'd like to know in what book the rules for flaws were published. I know the majority of them are in Dragon Magazine, but I figured it started in one of the books.

Please and Thank you.

[Flickerdart]

Unearthed Arcana (and thus available in the SRD) is where flaws started out. With stuff like "-2 to an ability score" and "-3 to a save", they're mostly noticeable penalties. However, even the writers expected people to give themselves penalties in things that won't affect them very much (-2 on ranged attacks? I'll just wield a sword).

[Psyren]

Flaws are largely so common in builds because feats are so sparse in 3.5. The truly interesting/creative builds end up completely starved, while the cookie-cutter caster ones can coast by as they always do. For instance, a build like Jack B. Quick is a work of art, but takes up almost every single feat available; meanwhile, a wizard can blow all his feats on Toughness and still be more effective in a general sense.

Pathfinder realized this and increased feats by 50% (and nearly 100% for Fighters) and even there characters still get starved. (Though in the case of melee, this can be partially-blamed on paizo itself.)

The more systems you add the worse the problem gets. Incarnum benefits everyone for instance, but no one - not even meldshapers themselves - have space to take even most of the useful out of that book.


Unearthed Arcana (and thus available in the SRD) is where flaws started out. With stuff like "-2 to an ability score" and "-3 to a save", they're mostly noticeable penalties. However, even the writers expected people to give themselves penalties in things that won't affect them very much (-2 on ranged attacks? I'll just wield a sword).

And it makes sense too. If I was Shaky, I would stick to learning melee growing up. So in-character, I would lean away from combat styles that intersect with my flaws, just as I would IRL.

[Medic!]

Yeah some of the flaws seem to be designed counter-intuitively to the flaw system's own guidelines. I think Shaky is one of the biggest offenders, giving a -2 on ranged attacks...but if someone's so shaky that they lose accuracy with a ranged weapon, they aren't going to specialize in ranged weaponry...and there are very few ways to roleplay something like that. You could be an archer who's hiding his debilitating injury/condition from his fellows etc etc....could go on all day idk.

Ultimately, the meaningfulness of a flaw is going to depend almost entirely on honesty between the DM and player with a lot of grey area. I advocate sitting down and looking at both the flaw, and the feat the player is attempting to purchase, then adjust as neccessary. If it's a GREAT feat, the flaw needs to be significant...if it's Dodge so they can qualify for the feat tree or for a PrC, the flaw can probably be something that doesn't come into play often.

I tend to think of flaws and traits (similar, but distinctly different, also from Unearthed Arcana) about the same as I do the Vow of Poverty, while you CAN get mechanical advantage from them, for the most part they just help to add a little flavor and give some mechanical guidance/direction for players who like a more life-like/humanesque element to their characters.

Of course there are some players out there who will stack completely meaningless flaws for free feats to qualify for features that are misinterrpreted due to a purely fluff-based "loophole" their lawyer found in the text of some entry somewhere....same kinda people that would intentionally kill off a PC at the first opportunity if they rolled up something with 14 as its highest stat...different strokes for different folks!

tl;dr Flaws are fine, but don't be afraid to adjust them, or at the very least take an equal advantage from them that your players do. "Muwahahaha I took Shaky on my pouncing uber-charger....what? We're escorting a caravan through a canyon with 110ft high cliffs on either side eh? Ambush from above you say? Well then..."

[2xMachina]

The drawback from shaky is reducing one's versatility. Sometimes, there are flying enemies that melee can't hit.

It's not to say that DM's should go out of their way to force it constantly. Perhaps the best way to be fair is to presume 2 chars, 1 with Shaky and 1 with Noncombatant. It'll probably provide a normal amount or ranged and melee encounters.

[ahenobarbi]

Mechanically flaws are mostly power-ups. Because they give you benefit (usually making you better in some thing you want to be good at) and disadvantage (usually making you worse in something you don't want to be good at).

If you don't like it don't allow flaws in games you DM.

@Psyren: Wizard can't burn all feats on toughness :smallwink:

[Flickerdart]

@Psyren: Wizard can't burn all feats on toughness :smallwink:
Chaos Feat Shuffle - burn all your feats on Toughness!

[Medic!]

Mechanically flaws are mostly power-ups. Because they give you benefit (usually making you better in some thing you want to be good at) and disadvantage (usually making you worse in something you don't want to be good at).

If you don't like it don't allow flaws in games you DM.

@Psyren: Wizard can't burn all feats on toughness :smallwink:

The inherent "flaw" with the flaw system is that it gives you a disadvantage you can plan for in advance, as opposed to a disadvantage you have to solve on the fly.

[Ashtagon]

If you're going to let a player have a flaw, you are duty bound to introduce situations where that flaw will be a genuine disadvantage.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think that is more due D&D leveling up scheme, while possible it is difficult to build an effective organic character. And as per the rule on flaws you can only get them at character creation. If for example they had implemented a sidebar or something mentioning that certain story elements, like a fighter being constantly hit by electric spells or something like that that he develop spams due damage to his body, he could get a flaw (shaky in this case) might work better.

But it would be entirely upon DM discretion and if that was the case I am sure there would be cases of "my Dm hit my archer with lightingbolt and now he says he has to get shaky as a flaw" (There are bad DM's out there who would relish at this opportunity)

[Psyren]

@Psyren: Wizard can't burn all feats on toughness :smallwink:

Sorcerer then :smalltongue: You know what I meant!

[ahenobarbi]

Chaos Feat Shuffle - burn all your feats on Toughness!

This actually made me laugh out loud, thanks :smallbiggrin:

[Medic!]

But it would be entirely upon DM discretion and if that was the case I am sure there would be cases of "my Dm hit my archer with lightingbolt and now he says he has to get shaky as a flaw" (There are bad DM's out there who would relish at this opportunity)

Actually, that just set off an entire train of thought in my head about "awarding" temporary flaws/traits...At our table when I'm DMing we use critical fumbles, and some of our DMs just do the "you drop your sword" or "you hit an ally" but I always liked doing things a bit more outside the box, like taking a temporary penalty on your ranged attacks because your bowstring back-bit you, etc.

Personally, I think it'd be cool as all get-out if, say, your archer-spec'd ranger totally bombed his saving throw against the enemy wizard's lightning bolt, so for the rest of the encounter he gets Shaky and the -2 to ranged attacks, but picks up a DM awarded feat or ability for the same duration...like he gets Lightning Reflexes for the rest of the fight due to the electricity-induced spasms/jumpiness, or he has residual electricy coursing through him, adding 1d4 points of electricity damage to each of his attacks.

Having that idea made me smile, thank you for this thing :smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

Are there actual debilitating flaws out there? It wasn't until about a year ago that I came across any. At first I thought the player in question was making things up, then he showed me the ones he saw online (homebrew... I wasn't pleased) the flaws he wanted his character to have seemed more like merits than anything else (have small junk and wield bigger weapons for free, plus a free feat), born blind (blindsense, plus three free feats), and then some that downright wouldn't affect him at all (penalties on ranged attacks as a close-range brawler), or my personal favorite "Hatred of Drow"... grey elves already hate drow.

So, in my game, I banned flaws. Seeing some of the builds presented here, it seems like flaws are much more accepted than I expected them to be. I'd like help compiling a list of actual debilitating flaws, or if there are some that I should really watch out for, and lastly, I'd like to know in what book the rules for flaws were published. I know the majority of them are in Dragon Magazine, but I figured it started in one of the books.

Please and Thank you.

Just ignore the stupid homebrew flaws on D&D wiki and the like. Fear of penguins? Really?

The flaws in UA are fair in return for what they give. Some are even a bit harsh(1 less hp a level is damned hard to swallow on some chars). In addition, I direct your attention to dragon, which has fun and balanced flaws like Delicious(ie, monsters that eat people pick you as their target). Hilarity AND definitely something that's usually bad.

D&D wiki is just a giant mess of fail.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I wouldn't like that because I am against critical fumbles on principle; but I do have to agree that the idea has it's merits.

Edit:... now I want to play a character with the Delicious Flaw....>_>

[Psyren]

Aren't there more flaws in Dragon? And if so, which ones? (Aside from Chicken-Infested...)

[Big Fau]

Honestly, I just stopped caring about flaws all together. I just gave out two free feats at level 1 and a handful more down the road. Paizo had a good idea about doubling the number of feats for most characters, but their execution was poor.

[GreenSerpent]

The ones in Dragon are actually pretty balanced. Like... Divine Gestures (SF chance for divine spells), Loner (no familiar), Cautious (double time for skill checks) and so on.

[Slipperychicken]

Aren't there more flaws in Dragon? And if so, which ones? (Aside from Chicken-Infested...)

Off the top of my head, there's Dead (you begin play dead, but with one more feat. Not so bad for a Necropolitan), Delicious (Makes monsters attack you. It might be great for a tank), one where you have to hold a sheep (and if you drop it, Orcus spawns and eats you, no save), a few phobias, and others.

I have to agree; the Dragon magazine flaws are balanced, particularly the Flaws For Barbarians.

EDIT: This site (http://www.imarvintpa.com/dndlive/index.php). Under feats, check the "flaws" box in the search filter and you'll get a list. Not complete, but there's a lot in there.

[Roguenewb]

The silly commoner flaws are funny and everything, but they printed quite a few restricted flaws, like flaws for certain classes or certain races or whatever, and most of them are well balanced because they have more control over who gets them.

[kardar233]

Just ignore the stupid homebrew flaws on D&D wiki and the like. Fear of penguins? Really?

I made a convincing argument to my DM that the flaw Compulsive Maniacal Laughter was a) more flavourful b) more debilitating and c) much funnier (especially as I can do a hell of a maniacal laugh, based on Mark Hamill's Joker) than any flaw I could get out of Unearthed Arcana.

[GnomeGninjas]

I made a convincing argument to my DM that the flaw Compulsive Maniacal Laughter was a) more flavourful b) more debilitating and c) much funnier (especially as I can do a hell of a maniacal laugh, based on Mark Hamill's Joker) than any flaw I could get out of Unearthed Arcana.

What was your argument?

[kardar233]

For a): The character was a manipulative bard/warlock/warblade with a knack for crazy plans. It makes sense for him to randomly burst into maniacal laughter.

For b): The character was also highly social (using invocations like Beguiling Influence and the Bard's social abilities) so the chance of bursting out into laughter after successfully manipulating people could be a serious drawback.

For c): I've perfected this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=n-9yE5EsuTM#t=64s) laugh.

[Cirrylius]

I made a convincing argument to my DM that the flaw Compulsive Maniacal Laughter was a) more flavourful b) more debilitating and c) much funnier (especially as I can do a hell of a maniacal laugh, based on Mark Hamill's Joker) than any flaw I could get out of Unearthed Arcana.

Oh Mark Hamill. Come home, we miss you already :smallfrown:

[Craft (Cheese)]

The drawback from shaky is reducing one's versatility. Sometimes, there are flying enemies that melee can't hit.

The problem for this is, unless you're a caster, D&D makes crippling overspecialization the norm anyway. If you're a melee-focused build who gets in a situation where melee is useless, you're completely screwed no matter what flaws you've taken.

[Anodai]

Just ignore the stupid homebrew flaws on D&D wiki and the like. Fear of penguins? Really?

Don't knock penguins. Theres one from norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Olav) who's a colonel-in-chief of the Royal Guard, and a knight!

[Kurald Galain]

I think D&D's implementation of flaws is flawed (hah). Flaws would work better if they give you a bonus (e.g. to experience points) whenever they hinder you, rather than giving you a flat bonus all the time. After all, that only encourages people to find a penalty that doesn't hinder them, which defeats the point of flaws.

If you want to give everyone more feats (which is a good idea in 3E, imho) then flat out give people more feats.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think D&D's implementation of flaws is flawed (hah). Flaws would work better if they give you a bonus (e.g. to experience points) whenever they hinder you, rather than giving you a flat bonus all the time. After all, that only encourages people to find a penalty that doesn't hinder them, which defeats the point of flaws.

This is a great way to go about it, though personally I'd use action points rather than XP.