[3.5] Are flaws unbalanced?

[heavyfuel]

As they are right now, I'd say yes!

Getting a -3 on reflex saves on a character that's already expected to fail all reflex saves in exchange for a feat seems REALLY good. Same goes for taking a -2 to melee attacks if you're always expected to use ranged weapons.

Honestly, as they are, I don't see why someone WOULDN'T take flaws if allowed. As a solution, should the penalties be buffed? Or should it be forbidden to take flaws that won't ever be used?

In the first "solution", the penalty to saves would be -6 instead of -3, and the penalty to attack rolls would be on both melee and ranged attack rolls (or maybe -4 on melee or ranged weapons). This way, the player is forced to take a more significant hit to an area he'll probably never use.

In the second one, i'd say you could only get a -3 on a save if you have that save to begin with (if we're talking about reflex, you'd need a starting dex of 16, or 12+class with good reflex), alternatively, you need at least +4 to ranged/melee attacks (Ability score [Dex or Str] + BAB + modifiers needs to be at least 4) to get the shaky hands and non-combatant respectively. In this scenario, the player will still take a small penalty, but in an area he's likely to use.
EDIT: Turns out... not that great of an idea, as explained by Dusk.

Would any of these two possible solutions make players think twice before picking up a flaw? If not, what would be a solution to flaws? (besides outright banning them)

Thanks!

[Jgosse]

I personaly feel aslong as the fault is 50% worse then a corasponding feat it is balanced. unreactive vs improved Int.

[Dusk Eclipse]

If you feel it is unfair that a melee warrior takes "Shaky" because he won't have to make any ranged attacks regularly you might be right, it is really good bonus for an almost negligible penalty, but think it from an in-character perspective. Why would someone who SUCKS at firing a bow decide to try to make a living by shooting arrows at deadly enemies? It makes sense for a melee fighter to take that flaw.

Having said I've heard that the Dragon Magazine flaws are pretty neat, haven't really seen them because I don't have any of them but if you can you should check'em out. IIRC there was one that added Divine Spell Failure to cleric spells and that would be an actual problem for clerics since they usually want to be armoured tanks who cast spells.

[00dlez]

Balanced or not, I think they contribute to a Min/Max Playstyle, which is why my groups and I never use them. As OP said...


I don't see why someone WOULDN'T take flaws if allowed.

And I agree in the case of most folks - one sacrifices something that they don't plan on usuing to become more potent at tasks they do plan on using.

I don't see balance as much as an issue in this case as Min/Maxing on Min/Maxing... It's just another avenue to promote disparity in characters abilities... Good or bad, that's your call

[Jurai]

I'd make them scale with level, or in the case of save flaws, have:smallmad: them bump that save down to poor for that PC's Career.

[eggynack]

It's definitely unbalanced. Feats are occasionally highly potent, and even relevant flaws aren't usually all that problematic. However, flaws might not necessarily be unbalanced to a harmful degree, and as nerd-Syndrome once said, "Once everyone is unbalanced, no one will be."

[Drachasor]

Unbalanced and unfun.

[Eldonauran]

I don't think they are inherently broken. I've done away with flaws in my 3.5 games entirely but allowing everyone to get a new feat at every odd level (aka Pathfinder feat progression) rather than every three levels. Now, there is no need for flaws.

[Jgosse]

I don't think they are inherently broken. I've done away with flaws in my 3.5 games entirely but allowing everyone to get a new feat at every odd level (aka Pathfinder feat progression) rather than every three levels. Now, there is no need for flaws.

I like this.

[heavyfuel]

Why would someone who SUCKS at firing a bow decide to try to make a living by shooting arrows at deadly enemies? It makes sense for a melee fighter to take that flaw.

That makes a lot of sense... So I that makes solution number 2 pretty useless. Horray!...

I'll definetly check out the flaws in Dragon Magazine if I can. Thanks, Dusk!


Balanced or not, I think they contribute to a Min/Max Playstyle, which is why my groups and I never use them.

I get that. I just wish they made sense more from a fluff perspective than from a min/max one.


"Once everyone is unbalanced, no one will be."

That woud be a problem at my table, where about 2 guys play for fluff, and one is minmaxer of sorts... The two fluffers won't want any flaws, but I'm sure the minmaxer will take as many as he can.

[Drachasor]

That woud be a problem at my table, where about 2 guys play for fluff, and one is minmaxer of sorts... The two fluffers won't want any flaws, but I'm sure the minmaxer will take as many as he can.

That's indicative of why they aren't not fun.

Unbalanced isn't so much about more feats. Giving a feat every other level or even every level to all isn't unbalanced (hurts the fighter, but he's a lost cause). However, given an unfun OPTION to get more feats that can be min-maxed...that's unbalanced.

[VariSami]

They are unbalanced, period. My own take is that if you want extra the game to have feats for minimal to no cost, just give them to the players. Persoanlly, I will implement the change to "feat every level" suggested in Monte Cook's 3rd party book "Collected Book of Experimental Might" the next time I start a new campaign. Most of my players are relatively low-op and it would actually allow them to choose additional, more flavorful feats without crippling themselves.

[eggynack]

That woud be a problem at my table, where about 2 guys play for fluff, and one is minmaxer of sorts... The two fluffers won't want any flaws, but I'm sure the minmaxer will take as many as he can.
It's a factor, but from that perspective pretty much everything in the game unbalances it. Just about everything, from the feats to the classes to the spells, represents a new trade off, and with it, a new unbalance. The only exceptions are options which are just never the correct choice. What I'm saying is, if one of your players was going to lord his massive optimization prowess over the other two before, flaws aren't going to change that math much, especially since "as many as he can," is two. People think that flaws are particularly unbalanced because the trade is made really explicit, but they don't consider the implicit trades to nearly the same extent. For example, using poor reflexes as fuel to pick up power attack is really functionally similar to taking power attack instead of lightning reflexes as one of your feats. The difference is that there are more slots to make those trades in. Ultimately, if your fluff players don't care about power level, then they probably won't care much about this.

edit:
That's indicative of why they aren't not fun.

Unbalanced isn't so much about more feats. Giving a feat every other level or even every level to all isn't unbalanced (hurts the fighter, but he's a lost cause). However, given an unfun OPTION to get more feats that can be min-maxed...that's unbalanced.
That's ridiculous. If one player wants something, and another player doesn't, they're both making that choice for themselves. Any optimization above the minimum is basically opt-in, and just about any option presented has imbalance, just because of its nature as an option.

[Totema]

I don't think they are inherently broken. I've done away with flaws in my 3.5 games entirely but allowing everyone to get a new feat at every odd level (aka Pathfinder feat progression) rather than every three levels. Now, there is no need for flaws.
This is what I do too. Even the munchkin-y types that I play with are fairly satisfied with this, even though they acquire the feats at later levels.

[Thanatosia]

Feats are given out far too Miserly in 3.5. I'd agree with their removal if you up feat progression to 1 per 2 levels, but if you don't give extra feats some other way, I think they should remain.

Feats are not all that strong for the most part, but many builds have various feat taxes built into them, which removes too much sense of character customization without giving players some way to get extras.

Personally, I kind of like them. Yeah, a figher who only melees taking a flaw for -2 ranged isn't exactly penalizing his character much in a min-max perspective, and it's always a good trade, but it adds some extra dimension to his character that he can't just pick up a bow and be good with it if it happens to come up in the heat of the moment. It's an extra aspect of character variation you just don't get without them. It adds character to characters while balancing out what I perceive as a flaw in default 3.5 (too few feats), so win-win in my book.

[Drachasor]

That's ridiculous. If one player wants something, and another player doesn't, they're both making that choice for themselves. Any optimization above the minimum is basically opt-in, and just about any option presented has imbalance, just because of its nature as an option.

You get +10 hit points if your character is blue.

That's opt-in. It also forces an aesthetic choice on characters. It's unbalanced and stupid.

Options don't have to be inherently unbalanced. Getting something good for next to nothing except crap flavor that doesn't affect you mechanically....that's one of those unbalanced things. Far better to just give everyone extra feats.

[Zweisteine]

I don't think flaws are quite as unbalanced as you think. Sure, the bonus might never apply (Wizard takes noncombatant), but it does approximately average out.

Like Dusk Eclipse said, the flaws make sense in-character. The only major problem with them crops up when you are dealing with hardcore character optimizers, who will take any flaw to get extreme bonuses.

If your group is full of min-maxers, flaws could be unbalanced. If not, they just allow more choices and customization, which can make playing more fun. That is the best reason to keep them. Except the fighter, most classes are feat-starved, so players will jump at the chance to make their characters able to do what they want.

In the end, though, the benefit from one feat isn't as great as it might seem. Sure, they might use the feat to get into a prestige class and still have some freedom of feat choice, but it all evens out. Few feats alone actually will be game-changers, and for those that are, the problem is in the feat, if it is a problem at all.

As for why someone wouldn't take flaws, they just might not want their character to have a given trait.
For a character I recently created for the only potentially long-running campaign I'm in, I was hesitant to take any. For most of the flaws, I didn't want to have the penalties (saves, initiative). I normally take at least one of the attack-penalizing flaws, but I need melee attacks, and my character isn't the type to be shaky. My other default, murky-eyed, had the same problem: I'm playing keen-sighted, steady-handed elf warrior; all the flaws get in my way.

Of course, if the players tend not to think about the role-playing aspects as much during character creation, that won't come up. Because of that, flaws will come up as a problem more in optimization than out, where players are more likely to think about stats first, roleplaying second.

The major problem with the limitations on flaws lies in how many players will actually roleplay the flaw, or, more importantly, consider it a part of the character. I would guess that many players will take the flaw and think of it only as a stat penalty, and not as part of their character, which takes something away from the flaws' effect in the game.


If all else fails, remember this: flaws are a variant rule. Only ue them if you want to. If a DM says "no flaws," they are not banning flaws so much as simply not allowing them in the first place.




The two fluffers won't want any flaws.
Why won't they? Flaws allow for extra fluff, and give bonuses, which can provide more fluff as well, in a way similar to traits.

[Talya]

I actually don't like them much per se, but use them constantly if I can.

The reason is D&D simply doesn't give you enough feats - especially with most PrCs having stupid feat taxes, and most builds requiring quite a few feats before they really start to "come online."

Feats are the primary way people customize their characters. They differentiate one ranger from another. I seriously believe that characters get new feats far too infrequently and not nearly enough of them. Flaws are a sloppy way to fix this problem, although they help a lot. It's not just that you get two more feats...it's that you get them right away. Even Pathfinder -- which has a more reasonable number of feats, total -- makes you wait for them. You don't pull even one feat ahead of 3.5 permanently until level 7. Flaws help, especially early on, where most of the game is played.

[eggynack]

You get +10 hit points if your character is blue.

That's opt-in. It also forces an aesthetic choice on characters. It's unbalanced and stupid.

Options don't have to be inherently unbalanced. Getting something good for next to nothing except crap flavor that doesn't affect you mechanically....that's one of those unbalanced things. Far better to just give everyone extra feats.
Pretty much every option is inherently unbalanced. I mean, if you want to get really technical, no flaw is a strictly unbalancing factor, because you're generally working with incomparables, and if you use them in a comparable form, you end up behind. Anyway, adding flaws just adds another option to the game. A player can take it or leave it.

[Morph Bark]

I allow flaws as a DM. They give players something extra (in the form of a feat), while further fleshing out a character. HOWEVER, I don't allow flaws with static penalties to them. All flaws in my campaigns must be role-playing related, and players are encouraged to come up with ones of their own. This was decided with the whole group, so everyone's okay with it. (And if they don't want one, they can decide simply to not take any flaws.)

Examples:
Skarr the deserter was a man with poor sense of direction, so every time he was alone and going somewhere, his direction was decided randomly (slightly skewed towards the correct direction as to not penalize him too much).

Santos the angel was an alcoholic who needed to make Will saves every time the opportunity to drink an alcoholic beverage became apparent.

Rogunel was both mute and a kleptomaniac who needed to make a Will save daily or succumb to the temptation to steal that day.

Faronel had a code of arms, so if he needed to attack someone who was unarmed, he'd receive a penalty of some sort.

And so on.

[Eladrinblade]

Yes, they add power to a character - someone with flaws is better than someone without flaws, unless the flaws pertain to one of the characters strengths, or they chose really crappy feats with them.

That said, I allow them because characters are often feat-starved, and there's just so many damn feats. I use PF's feat progression, I often allow people to take two less-than-awesome feats in place of one, and I still allow flaws, even when they hardly affect the character.

[Drachasor]

Pretty much every option is inherently unbalanced. I mean, if you want to get really technical, no flaw is a strictly unbalancing factor, because you're generally working with incomparables, and if you use them in a comparable form, you end up behind. Anyway, adding flaws just adds another option to the game. A player can take it or leave it.

False equivalence fallacy, friend.

Nothing is perfectly balanced. Some things are more unbalanced than others. Flaws are one of the worse options. Often they end up being "punch your aesthetics in the face for power." Terrible, terrible choice, especially since they aren't good RP aids. They are boring min-max tools if implemented.

The take it or leave it part is the problem if they are an option. That's why it is better to just provide extra feats.

Something that handles flaws in a fun, balanced, and interesting way is the FATE RPG via Aspects.

[Big Fau]

I just stopped letting players take flaws and gave them 2 bonus feats at 1st level. More or less amounted to the same thing.

[TypoNinja]

I get that. I just wish they made sense more from a fluff perspective than from a min/max one.



They do if you choose them that way. My method of building a character tends to be to come up with a theme/personality/gimmick, then seeing if I can make that a viable build.

For example my most recent creation, my Mystic Thurge (cleric/Sorc) He got non-combative for a Flaw. Not because he's a dual caster so never swings a weapon (I actually did for the first time ever at level 9! I took an AoO, it hit even!) but because hes a cloistered cleric into mystic thurge, he studied at the expense of marital training, even more than most. Furthermore, mastering both divine and arcane magic leaves him with the opinion that hitting things, brute force, is an inferior solution. "Oh, you hit things, how quaint."

Similarly the Bravado flaw represents his supreme faith in the superiority of magic. The only thing that will give him pause is something more skilled at magic than he.



That woud be a problem at my table, where about 2 guys play for fluff, and one is minmaxer of sorts... The two fluffers won't want any flaws, but I'm sure the minmaxer will take as many as he can.

Flaws are helpful from a minmax prespective, you try and give up abilities you wouldn't use at all, or very often, to get better at something else. They let you specialize, but they can be downsides. They just need a little policing for choices. Don't let melee characters take -casterlevel flaws, that kind of thing. Also numbers. My group regularly uses flaws, limit two. Sometimes we take both, sometimes only one, sometimes none. Got an old jack of all trades Ranger, decided I didn't want to give him any flaws, couldn't stand the idea of him being terrible at something.

For your Fluffers, flaws can be used to add personality to a character, or even better, they can be used to have game mechanics help enforce their fluff choices, like my mystic thurge above. He spent all his time mastering two kinds of magic, when would he get weapons training in? With that -2 to melee attacks and a 10 str, even at 7th level he's still a straight die roll swinging a weapon. If he ever pulls out his mace things are going horribly wrong.

As someone who loves a good story as much as I love hearing the thunder of accumulated damage dice I have to say, I absolutely love the idea that Flaws let me enforce my story choices in terms of game mechanics.

[Talya]

The take it or leave it part is the problem if they are an option. That's why it is better to just provide extra feats.


That's fine if you're the DM and in control of the house rules.

As a player, however, it's often easier to get flaws past the DM (because there are printed rules for them) than it is to convince him to implement such a house rule.

[Drachasor]

That's fine if you're the DM and in control of the house rules.

As a player, however, it's often easier to get flaws past the DM (because there are printed rules for them) than it is to convince him to implement such a house rule.

Yes, but none of that changes the basic situation.

Hmm, FATE-like graft onto D&D might work for flaws and such.

[Lanaya]

Flaws are an inherently iffy concept because, as everyone has noticed, players deliberately seek out flaws which won't hinder them much, or at all, in exchange for feats that will give them substantial boosts. The only system I've seen that makes flaws work is Mutants and Masterminds. Characters have a number of complications (at least 2) which could conceivably have some temporary negative effect on them, such as Superman's vulnerability to kryptonite or an overly trusting demeanour. Whenever you are screwed over by your complication (and what counts is entirely up to the GM), you gain the equivalent of an action point, which only lasts for that adventure. Effectively, flaws in M&M are character-driven, roleplay-encouraging mechanics which give out rewards equal to the penalties. If you do what everyone does with D&D flaws and take a complication that never affects you, you never get the bonus, so you might as well not have a complication at all. If you take a complication which substantially hinders you and crops up a lot, you get big rewards to compensate.

[Talya]

The only reason people do that is feats are such a precious commodity of which the rule system provides far too few, then requires you to have lots of them to actually do the things that you envision your character doing.

As said, I actually don't like flaws, for the reasons many people have said, however, D&D is in bad need of extra feats. I actually don't think that a feat every level would be a bad thing. (That would, of course, be the last nail in the coffin for the fighter class.)

[Drachasor]

Flaws are an inherently iffy concept because, as everyone has noticed, players deliberately seek out flaws which won't hinder them much, or at all, in exchange for feats that will give them substantial boosts. The only system I've seen that makes flaws work is Mutants and Masterminds. Characters have a number of complications (at least 2) which could conceivably have some temporary negative effect on them, such as Superman's vulnerability to kryptonite or an overly trusting demeanour. Whenever you are screwed over by your complication (and what counts is entirely up to the GM), you gain the equivalent of an action point, which only lasts for that adventure. Effectively, flaws in M&M are character-driven, roleplay-encouraging mechanics which give out rewards equal to the penalties. If you do what everyone does with D&D flaws and take a complication that never affects you, you never get the bonus, so you might as well not have a complication at all. If you take a complication which substantially hinders you and crops up a lot, you get big rewards to compensate.

Fate is like this, but an Aspect has good and bad properties. If the bad stuff is used against you, then you can get a point if you allow it (or spend a point to resist). You can spend points for a small bonus, or spend points when an Aspect applies to an action for a bigger bonus.

[eggynack]

False equivalence fallacy, friend.

Nothing is perfectly balanced. Some things are more unbalanced than others. Flaws are one of the worse options. Often they end up being "punch your aesthetics in the face for power." Terrible, terrible choice, especially since they aren't good RP aids. They are boring min-max tools if implemented.
No, flaws are one of the less unbalanced things in the game. You could have one character take two perfectly suited feats with two perfectly suited flaws, and you could have the other character take no flaws at all, and that imbalance likely wouldn't cover a single tier most of the time. Correct spell choice also has a greater impact on power, as does PrC selection. As for aesthetics, most classes and races in the game have some sort of fluff attachment, often on a greater scale than flaws, and I don't see anyone caring about those trades of aesthetics for power. In fact, people tend to welcome them.

[Know(Nothing)]

We've always run a maximum of 2 flaws, one of which must have heavy roleplay influence. Custom RP flaws heavily encouraged.

I run one called Paranoid, which aside from being a fun thing to act out, imposes a -4 to Sense Motive, as well as DM-decided consequences for failed checks. For instance, instead of just not getting a hunch about someone being trustworthy, I might get a hunch that they're hostile.

[Dusk Eclipse]

The only reason people do that is feats are such a precious commodity of which the rule system provides far too few, then requires you to have lots of them to actually do the things that you envision your character doing.

As said, I actually don't like flaws, for the reasons many people have said, however, D&D is in bad need of extra feats. I actually don't think that a feat every level would be a bad thing. (That would, of course, be the last nail in the coffin for the fighter class.)



Eh, pile up all the ACF for fighter (Dungeon crasher, Zhentarim, all those high level features from the PHBII) at the same time and you might get something useful that is of course along the normal bonus feats. Perhaps let a fighter skip one pre-requisite per bonus feat as fighter-only benefit. So for example a Fighter might skip Shocktropper's requisite of having Improved Bull Rush or BAB +6.

[Seerow]

I think flaws have a place in games. Just not the place most players tend to want them to fill.

For example, if playing an old school style game where you roll your characters stats and place them on the character sheet in the order you roll them, then build the character to suit the stats? I think giving the option to add on randomly generated flaws for bonus feats would fit in great. In that case it's all about taking the character you've rolled, and building the character to fit that. The flaws give you an increased risk (what if you roll flaws that go horribly against any archtype your stats support?), but give the reward of bonus feats to help offset any negatives you pick up, and the possibility of being a net gain.


But Flaws as they're usually used, in a typical game where you get to custom tailor every bit of your character? Yeah, they typically come off to me as just people who want a work around for the rules. I don't like the concept, it's practically the definition of munchkinry, even if the net benefit isn't actually that great. I'd rather just houserule in "Characters gain feats at every odd level" or something along those lines to help with feat starvation if that's the concern.

[DeusMortuusEst]

False equivalence fallacy, friend.

Nothing is perfectly balanced. Some things are more unbalanced than others. Flaws are one of the worse options. Often they end up being "punch your aesthetics in the face for power." Terrible, terrible choice, especially since they aren't good RP aids. They are boring min-max tools if implemented.

Please provide evidence for that claim as I don't think that it is that obvious at all. Feats are commonly more needed by mundane classes/low tier classes to provide more options within the game. As such I feel that a mechanic that can provide more feats to those classes will improve on the balance on the game.

As for how good RP aids they are I'd say that varies between players. If you have a character with the shaky flaw and ignores it beyond when you need to make a ranged attack then yes, the flaw was a bad RP aid. But if you play a character and really use that flaw to make the character more life-like then has not hindered you at all and for a lot of players I am sure that it can be of help to bring their characters to life.

All in all there isn't a clear cut answer to this question, so you might want to be more careful when claiming that other's are using fallacies.

[Drachasor]

Please provide evidence for that claim as I don't think that it is that obvious at all. Feats are commonly more needed by mundane classes/low tier classes to provide more options within the game. As such I feel that a mechanic that can provide more feats to those classes will improve on the balance on the game.

As for how good RP aids they are I'd say that varies between players. If you have a character with the shaky flaw and ignores it beyond when you need to make a ranged attack then yes, the flaw was a bad RP aid. But if you play a character and really use that flaw to make the character more life-like then has not hindered you at all and for a lot of players I am sure that it can be of help to bring their characters to life.

All in all there isn't a clear cut answer to this question, so you might want to be more careful when claiming that other's are using fallacies.

Because it is a mechanic that encourages people to not embrace for RP reasons. A mechanic that can inherently clash with RP/flavor like that should be avoided, because it increases disparity between min-maxers and non-min-maxers (which is usually much worse than the caster/non-caster disparity). Further, people using them primarily as RP aids are more likely be affected by them in the game (rather than someone who fleshes out RP reasons after choosing one with a minimized impact).

Plenty of feats that make casters much stronger and plenty of chains and good feats available at first level. More feats help casters quite a bit too. Granted at low levels it will probably help out non-casters more, simply because that's when non-casters have their best relative advantage.

There are much better ways and options for fleshing out a character. Much better mechanics too.

[Totema]

How about this system for implementing flaws? Print all the ones you will put up with on a d% table. If a player wants to take flaws, they have to roll on the table and take the one they get. This removes the option of complete choice from the player.

I still don't think this balances flaws out, but it might make someone feel a bit better for implementing them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't allow flaws in my game but if I did I'd make the flaw received random.

This changes the dynamic from "which flaw do I pick for this feat so that I get a benefit with minimal drawback?" to "do I wanna take a chance for that extra feat?"

[Talya]

There are much better ways and options for fleshing out a character. Much better mechanics too.

I generally agree.

I just realized I often use them on NPCs, though. There is a drunken dwarf sailor (ranger) with PTSD in the crew of my pirate campaign's ship. He has Shaky and Unreactive - for specific reasons. He once rolled initiative in a boarding action of negative five. It just felt epicly appropriate.

[Curmudgeon]

I actually don't like them much per se, but use them constantly if I can.

The reason is D&D simply doesn't give you enough feats - especially with most PrCs having stupid feat taxes, and most builds requiring quite a few feats before they really start to "come online."

http://www.famousboard.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

As a player, I find myself torn between flaws that won't make much difference for my character (as Shaky for a melee specialist), and those that fit the spirit better and do matter. If I'm playing a Cleric (or a character with a Cleric dip) I'll often go for Divine Gesture (equivalent of ACF for divine casters), and sacrifice the ability to wear armor: something that actually matters, but I feel I need to follow the spirit of the rules for a more powerful class. If I'm playing a Rogue going the Hide in Plain Sight route I may choose Frail instead: something which (I hope) won't matter much because the character will rarely be targeted and thus HP aren't that important.

[Acanous]

Flaws let you specialize and tweak your character. They were actually printed as worse penalties than associated feats because it was assumed a player would take flaws that had the least impact on their build (It's spelled out in the flaws section.)
While 3.5 is anything but balanced, Flaws actually do a pretty good job for what they're intended to do.

Of course, as with everything else, they benefit casters more than mundanes. Having Dodge, Mobility, and Spring attack at lv 1 is a lot less broken than say... Metamagic School Focus, Fell Drain, and Snowcasting.
In both cases it's letting you pull off some tricks you'd only be able to pull at a higher level, but for the mundane you might get... whirlwind, while with the Caster you're not only ending any 1st level threat with a ranged touch attack, you also get early access to Locate City Bomb.

Basically I'd allow flaws for mundanes no problem, they should build for things that won't hurt them in one of the limited ways they are effective. Casters, though... You should probably restrict them to things like Unreactive, or that -1 HP/HD one. Things that will actually matter.

On a completely unrelated note, have a table.

Feats by level
{table=head]Level|3.5 with Flaws|Pathfinder|(Dis)Parity
1|3|1|+66%
2|3|1|+66%
3|4|2|+50%
4|4|2|+50%
5|4|3|+25%
6|5|3|+40%
7|5|4|+20%
8|5|4|+20%
9|6|5|+17%
10|6|5|+17%
11|6|6|0%
12|7|6|+14%
13|7|7|0%
14|7|7|0%
15|8|8|0%
16|8|8|0%
17|8|9|-11%
18|9|9|0%
19|9|10|-10%
20|9|10|-10%
[/table]
-Did some rounding for easy math.
This is actually pretty indicative of a serious difference- 3.5 lets you have your candy now, when it'll be useful. Pathfinder doesn't actually pull ahead until lv 17, and only gets +1 feat over 3.5, AT lv 19, when it makes the least difference. Given the tendancy for games to finish well before lv 15, 3.5 gives you much higher impact for your feats. a total of 353% disparity, averaging out to +17.65% overall.

[AstralFire]

Traits are better for flavor than flaws. Feats need to be less stingy, but are a separate issue.

[OldTrees1]

At my table Flaws have done nothing but improve our experience. However I expect we do not use them as normal.

We require all flaws to significantly impact the character.

Already failing all Ref saves? Then you can't take -3 Reflex. Passing most Ref saves? Then you can take -3 Ref since it increases your vulnerability to Ref saves.

The same rule applies to all flaws (and frankly renders some either forbidden or not desirable)

But you are asking, what benefit do they provide my group? Certainly they do not enhance the RP aspect since my players create detailed personalities with flaws/strengths already. However there are 2 mechanical benefits.

1: Adjust stats
Several of my players had intricate builds in order to gain the special abilities they want to actualize their concept. Unfortuately this often ends with the side effect of out of whack saves, AC, Attack or Damage.

A Skillmonkey wanted abilities from several Roguish classes. This resulted in crippling low Fort saves and impossibly high Ref saves. If all the characters had various crippling saves and impossibly high save, I would not be able to adequately challenge some of the characters without destroying others. So we used the -3 to a save flaws with the +1 save/-1save traits in order to reign in the undesirable unintentional min/maxing of the saves.

2: Bonus feats
Several of my players have concepts that are fairly feat intensive (mundane melee/skill monkeys). This is exacerbated by their quest for special abilities to fill out their character concept. By allowing these players to have the additional feats at first level, their characters better approximate their character concepts.


TLDR: Flaws have benefited my table greatly.

[Dusk Eclipse]

http://www.famousboard.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

As a player, I find myself torn between flaws that won't make much difference for my character (as Shaky for a melee specialist), and those that fit the spirit better and do matter. If I'm playing a Cleric (or a character with a Cleric dip) I'll often go for Divine Gesture (equivalent of ACF for divine casters), and sacrifice the ability to wear armor: something that actually matters, but I feel I need to follow the spirit of the rules for a more powerful class. If I'm playing a Rogue going the Hide in Plain Sight route I may choose Frail instead: something which (I hope) won't matter much because the character will rarely be targeted and thus HP aren't that important.

So that was the flaw I was thinking about earlier, what Dragon Issue had those flaws?

[The Trickster]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but D&D pretty much tells you that allowing flaws can be unbalancing if you aren't careful.

From


A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role. That way, a player can't reduce the flaw's importance through multiclassing. For instance, a flaw that only affects spellcasters might seem reasonable-but for nonspellcaster characters, the flaw likely proves meaningless. Even if you restrict the selection of such feats to characters of specific classes, a player can easily select a spellcasting class at 1st level, choose two flaws that apply to spellcasters, gain the bonus feats, multiclass into a nonspellcasting class at 2nd level and thereafter proceed as a primarily nonspellcasting character. The player has sacrificed a level to gain two bonus feats, a tradeoff that appeals to some players.

Similarly, a flaw that penalizes a character's Charisma based skill checks only has a significant impact on the party spokesperson-the quiet fighter or barbarian likely won't feel any impact from the penalties.

Of course, this leads to a different issue. Why wouldn't my "shaky" character want to stay away from ranges combat if he knows he is bad at it? But if he stays away from ranged combat, the flaw isn't really hurting him any more (if that makes any sense. I am suppose to be working...hehe :smalltongue:).

[Drachasor]

I am not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but D&D pretty much tells you that allowing flaws can be unbalancing if you aren't careful.

From

...

Of course, this leads to a different issue. Why wouldn't my "shaky" character want to stay away from ranges combat if he knows he is bad at it? But if he stays away from ranged combat, the flaw isn't really hurting him any more (if that makes any sense. I am suppose to be working...hehe :smalltongue:).

This is why it is better to use a Flaw system that gives you a reward when your flaw comes into play. (something like Force Points in SAGA or the like, though probably a bit more powerful than FPs). Then you have a reason to pick something that will come up. Of course, this does not net you a feat in such system. Really though, the feat problem should be solved directly by just giving people more feats.

[Honest Tiefling]

At my table Flaws have done nothing but improve our experience. However I expect we do not use them as normal.

We require all flaws to significantly impact the character.

Already failing all Ref saves? Then you can't take -3 Reflex. Passing most Ref saves? Then you can take -3 Ref since it increases your vulnerability to Ref saves.

I sometimes quite enjoy roleplaying a flaw. I like the ability to represent both weakness and strength, and I think this is the trick to doing it right. Personally, I think after reading this, I'd prefer the DM to have veto power over all flaws.

[Curmudgeon]

Why wouldn't my "shaky" character want to stay away from ranges combat if he knows he is bad at it? But if he stays away from ranged combat, the flaw isn't really hurting him any more (if that makes any sense.
Your Shaky character may want to stay away from ranged combat, but what are they going to do when they're moving across open ground and get attacked at long range? It's the DM's job to create scenarios so that your flaws will matter, at least some of the time.

[Rhaegar14]

In my games, we generally allow flaws to be taken for feats that are cool and flavorful, but don't really offer much of a mechanical benefit, so we can save our "real" feat slots for things that actually make our builds work. However...


I actually don't like them much per se, but use them constantly if I can.

The reason is D&D simply doesn't give you enough feats - especially with most PrCs having stupid feat taxes, and most builds requiring quite a few feats before they really start to "come online."

Feats are the primary way people customize their characters. They differentiate one ranger from another. I seriously believe that characters get new feats far too infrequently and not nearly enough of them. Flaws are a sloppy way to fix this problem, although they help a lot. It's not just that you get two more feats...it's that you get them right away. Even Pathfinder -- which has a more reasonable number of feats, total -- makes you wait for them. You don't pull even one feat ahead of 3.5 permanently until level 7. Flaws help, especially early on, where most of the game is played.

This. This, this, this, this, this. Emphasis mine.

I'll go with a really, really common archetype to demonstrate. Take the archer. To be able to shoot into melee (and support his melee friends) without penalty, the archer needs to take Precise Shot, which in turn requires Point Blank Shot. This means that without a class-based bonus feat (so without being a Fighter) or flaws, a first level, non-human archer can't shoot into melee without a -4 penalty, which is CRIPPLING at first level.

And what if he decides he wants to throw knives instead of shoot a bow? Well then he needs Quick Draw too, since early feat choices are probably going to be things like Two-Weapon Fighting and Rapid Shot to get extra knives to throw, not to mention that he's going to get iteratives at some point. So that's three feats just to make all of his attacks without penalty.

Mind you, this is without even considering how to get them to do appreciable damage, this is just how to make it work at all. Either of those builds is gonna need way more feats to actually be effective. There is no fun in playing a cool character concept if he doesn't work how he's supposed to until 9th or even 12th level because that's when I get the last key feat I need, and that's what flaws are good for.

[Know(Nothing)]

Personally, I think after reading this, I'd prefer the DM to have veto power over all flaws

The DM always has veto power over flaws, which is why I find it so bizarre that people mind them so much. If using them isn't working for the game, the DM should remove or change them. If the players are abusing them, he should remove or change them. Same goes for literally any other aspect of the game-- if something is breaking it, then stop it.

Some tables apparently can't handle not trying to break the game, and some DMs apparently can't tell his players "no."

Just judge things based on context. A wizard taking as many flaws/feats as he can and and obviating every other player is a bit different than giving a monk a minor boost for faithfully playing a flavorful aspect of his character that is otherwise detrimental.

[Talya]

A wizard taking as many flaws/feats as he can and and obviating every other player is a bit different than giving a monk a minor boost for faithfully playing a flavorful aspect of his character that is otherwise detrimental.

I find both potentially problematic. There's a large middle-ground between "cheese-monkeying your way to god-hood" and "building the worst character possible and not contributing to your party."

[Know(Nothing)]

Oh absolutely. I just meant to illustrate that flaws being balanced or unbalanced depends entirely on what the table using them is like. Fun is the goal of the game, and if having them, or banning them, or altering them means more fun(for all players, and the DM) then that's what should be done.

Whatever works is whatever works.