Paladin Trick

[Sgtpepper]

Since you can take a fear (home brew?) and gain a feat, this means a paladin can gain unlimited feats at level 1 since they gain fear immunity at level 3.

[Greenish]

Most games, even the ones using completely homebrew flaws, only allow for two per character, and require them to have a meaningful impact on said character.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

What your referring too sounds like a flaw and a homebrew one at that. Even if you were allowed to take flaws (optional rule often seen as cheesy) and homebrew ones the standard flaw limit is 2.

Edit: Swordsaged, the Unreactive flaw comes back to bite me once again.

[Crake]

I would allow it, just to see if the paladin can even GET to 3 considering how many phobias he'd have. (If I were DMing, he probably wouldn't)

[dungeonnerd]

I'd allow it, but at 3 they lose access to the feats because they lose the flaw - and since they no longer qualify for that feat slot, they no longer qualify to keep those feats.

[Erik Vale]

Similarly.



I would allow it, just to see if the paladin can even GET to 3 considering how many phobias he'd have. (If I were DMing, he probably wouldn't)


Very true. I mean, they would either suffer a heart attack or never go adventuring.

[Mato]

Flaws are not cheesy, only improperly used by people that don't understand the word meaningful.

Seeing how these boards of a monk fetish, let me try putting this in a way you'll understand. A Monk wants to use Noncombative (-2 melee att) to pick up TWF and wonders if it is meaningful. GitP lols for 52 weeks and and out of the thirty people giggling like a school girl only three actually weigh in and agree.

The same Monk upon realizing he needs to increase his hit chances significantly looks at Shiba Protecter (wis to att/dmg) which requires Iron Will among other things. Having already decided to use Fist of the Forest he asks his follow players for advice which comes back to two types of replies. Use the Otyugh Hole which only costs 3,000 gold or see if the DM allows Weak Will (-3 to will), in effect granting a permanent -1 to his Will save in exchange for reducing Feat tax by one. Is it truly game breaking in this instance to be called 'cheesy'?

Comparatively, you mention Flaws around the uninformed and they picture a Wizard with Noncombative (-2 to melee attack rolls) & Vulnerable (-1 AC), picking up Hidden Talent(minor creation) & Shape Soulmeld(airstep sandals) for DC 30+ poison and near-flight at level 1 with a character that never makes a melee attack and makes use of miss chances not AC to survive. It never allowed to be used like that, and that is one heck of an extreme case, that banks off how horrible over powered those two Feats are even if they consumed your "normal" Feat slot.

In fact, UA's Flaws are mostly tailored towards martial oriented characters. Sure it's got some basics, -3 to Saves or -6 to Initiative, but AC, Miss Chances, Hit penalties, Land Speed, these are martial based Flaws. Not a single printed one penalizes Caster Level, impose penalties to Spell Save DCs, or even reduce Spells Known for Sorcerers. Those are up to the DM, but the lack of caster focused printed flaws only detracts from the requirements of even taking a Flaw: It must in meaningful way impose a penalty on your character.

[Amphetryon]

Flaws are not cheesy, only improperly used by people that don't understand the word meaningful.

Seeing how these boards of a monk fetish, let me try putting this in a way you'll understand. A Monk wants to use Noncombative (-2 melee att) to pick up TWF and wonders if it is meaningful. GitP lols for 52 weeks and and out of the thirty people giggling like a school girl only three actually weigh in and agree.

The same Monk upon realizing he needs to increase his hit chances significantly looks at Shiba Protecter (wis to att/dmg) which requires Iron Will among other things. Having already decided to use Fist of the Forest he asks his follow players for advice which comes back to two types of replies. Use the Otyugh Hole which only costs 3,000 gold or see if the DM allows Weak Will (-3 to will), in effect granting a permanent -1 to his Will save in exchange for reducing Feat tax by one. Is it truly game breaking in this instance to be called 'cheesy'?

Comparatively, you mention Flaws around the uninformed and they picture a Wizard with Noncombative (-2 to melee attack rolls) & Vulnerable (-1 AC), picking up Hidden Talent(minor creation) & Shape Soulmeld(airstep sandals) for DC 30+ poison and near-flight at level 1 with a character that never makes a melee attack and makes use of miss chances not AC to survive. It never allowed to be used like that, and that is one heck of an extreme case, that banks off how horrible over powered those two Feats are even if they consumed your "normal" Feat slot.

In fact, UA's Flaws are mostly tailored towards martial oriented characters. Sure it's got some basics, -3 to Saves or -6 to Initiative, but AC, Miss Chances, Hit penalties, Land Speed, these are martial based Flaws. Not a single printed one penalizes Caster Level, impose penalties to Spell Save DCs, or even reduce Spells Known for Sorcerers. Those are up to the DM, but the lack of caster focused printed flaws only detracts from the requirements of even taking a Flaw: It must in meaningful way impose a penalty on your character.The issue is that "meaningful" has no game-defined meaning, and so is entirely subjective. As such, what one group may consider a "meaningful" shortcoming for a Character, another would gloss over entirely.

Claiming that a given, otherwise legal, usage of a specific, extant Flaw should "never" be allowed when there's no actual rules text to back that up may work just fine amongst those with whom you game, but it isn't actually supported within the system.