[3.5] Flaws and other variant rules

[PetterTomBos]

Which do you use? Is it reasonable to expect flaws to be in use in a given campaign?

When a book is released with a variant rule, is it expected that one should use it? The UA-rules, are they considered RAW in a "standard" game?

[Kasbark]

I would never expect any variant rules to be standard in any game i participate in - they are variant for a reason.

But then again, i don't expect to be able to use stuff from splat-books (prestige clases, spells, feats ect.) either. If i would like to include it in a character concept, i'll ask my DM and not make any assumptions.

[SowZ]

If the game is starting at low levels, without flaws a LOT of character concepts cannot be built. Especially martial ones. I won't expect flaws to be used, but I will say I support them. If the DM vetoes, then I'm actually going to be more powerful. Not out of spite, but because I'll go with a simpler build and the simplest, tried and true builds are usually stronger.

(With up to five starting feats, I can do something like a dual crossbow wielder or something else silly but sub-optimal.)

[PetterTomBos]

If the game is starting at low levels, without flaws a LOT of character concepts cannot be built. Especially martial ones. I won't expect flaws to be used, but I will say I support them. If the DM vetoes, then I'm actually going to be more powerful. Not out of spite, but because I'll go with a simpler build and the simplest, tried and true builds are usually stronger.

(With up to five starting feats, I can do something like a dual crossbow wielder or something else silly but sub-optimal.)

I agree, but isn't this partly what low lvl.s is about? You cannot cast certain spells either... On the other hand, when it comes to doing silly, sup-optimal, stuff my response as a DM is usually "talk to me. We'll figure it out".

The reasn I'm asking here is that one of my players has taken flaws as RAW for some reason. I think he saw the amount of flaws in a lot of builds around and deduced from that.

[tiercel]

At the end of the day, DM generally gets final word over what is/isn't allowed (since part of the DM's job is adjudication and its hard to rule on rules you don't know, for one thing).

My general experience tends to be:

3.5 Core + official published non-setting-specific WotC 3.5 books (notable exceptions may include psionics, incarnum, Tome of Battle and/or Tome of Magic if DM simply isn't familiar with those systems)

No Dragon magazine (except on case-by-case basis)

Setting-specific (e.g. Forgotten Realms, Eberron) books when the game is set in, or includes, those settings

UA: generally "variant character classes" are at least open to discussion (if nothing else because they are a development of discussion in the PHB about customizing classes), but I haven't personally seen much anything else in UA actually used in a campaign I've been in

-----

I think a fair number of TO builds assume flaws just because it gives more flexibility for the thought exercise, but that doesn't mean that they are assumed to be always available -- UA is explicitly a variant book, and things like gestalt and using 3d6 in place of d20 certainly aren't in play unless the campaign specifically calls for them.

[PurpleSocks]

I generally say core and complete only, if I'm using a setting I'll allow those books. UA and other sourcebooks is always a case by case basis for me as making the martials more powerful is almost always acceptable, but allowing my munchkin min max druid PC to take an extra feat/super awesome ability that makes him even more godlike is something I try to avoid.

[Amnestic]

I like flaws because fun builds can be very feat-starved, it's easier to plan a build when you can see it coming to light in front of you rather than in 7 or 17 levels, and because it sometimes lets you grab feats you wouldn't normally pick, but because you have two extra feats to blow you think "yeah, maybe this one could work here".

It's explicitly a variant rule though, as noted. As a DM you need to make it clear what variant rules are in play as soon as possible and establish it as a 'baseline'. If a player wants a rules change (i.e. addition of flaws/traits) after that, they can bring it to you and you can suss it out as a group - but the DM pretty much always has final say on such matters.

As for whether they're "expected", I tend to expect them, but I don't mind too much if they're not there. Always be sure to ask, basically.