Balancing Flaws?

[bendking]

Recently I've started DM'ing a campaign, in which I allowed flaws under my supervision and balancing, and I want to ask the community here wether they think the balancing is fair.
For our Bard (DEX combatant\buffer):
Shaky: -10 on all ranged attacks.
Frail: Subtract 1 from the number of hit points you gain at each level, and you take a -3 penalty on Fortitude saves.
And for our badass (now even more badass thanks to flaws) Archer (fighter in class):
Non-Combatant: -10 on all melee attacks.
Stubborn Pride: If you engage a creature, you must continue to battle that creature until the encounter ends or the creature is defeated or flees, even if it would be tactically sound to withdraw to help an ally or retreat from a losing battle. You can only withdraw by making a successful Will save, DC 15 + 1/2 your HD. If you succeed you may withdraw or change targets, but take a -2 penalty to attack rolls, damage, saves, and skill checks until the end of the encounter out of shame.
Non-Combatant: -10 on all melee attacks.
The feats they took were very effective, so I think this balancing is definitely in order - what do you think?
I could really use the tips, I don't want to run a highly powered adventured from the get-go.

[A.A.King]

The balancing issue with certain flaws is that the penalty is arbitrary. I see for example that you raised the penalty of both Shaky and Non-Combatant from -2 to -10. It's a significant increase, but one that probably will never be noticed. The Bard was probably never going to make ranged attacks nor was the Archer ever planning on having to make a melee attack. Therefor you can't really say that the flaws are balanced, you simply have to decide as the DM whether or not the builds are too strong or not because even if Non-Combatant said "you can never make Melee Attacks" it would probably still not really hurt the Archer.

Having said that, I do like Shaky on a Dexterity based melee build. Non-Combatant on an Archer doesn't really matter, the character probably never really had the stats to be good at melee in the first place. However, had the shaky guy not been shaky he might have made a fine archer.

But yeah, other then "Frail" none of these flaws really hurt the fighting style of the corresponding character. "Stubborn Pride" could be an inconvenience and might even kill the character if an encounter turns sour (especially considering the fact that as a Fighter he will have a low will save) but both "Shaky" and "Non-Combatant" are flaws that will probably never be noticed.

[Crake]

Recently I've started DM'ing a campaign, in which I allowed flaws under my supervision and balancing, and I want to ask the community here wether they think the balancing is fair.
For our Bard (DEX combatant\buffer):
Shaky: -10 on all ranged attacks.
Frail: Subtract 1 from the number of hit points you gain at each level, and you take a -3 penalty on Fortitude saves.
And for our badass (now even more badass thanks to flaws) Archer (fighter in class):
Non-Combatant: -10 on all melee attacks.
Stubborn Pride: If you engage a creature, you must continue to battle that creature until the encounter ends or the creature is defeated or flees, even if it would be tactically sound to withdraw to help an ally or retreat from a losing battle. You can only withdraw by making a successful Will save, DC 15 + 1/2 your HD. If you succeed you may withdraw or change targets, but take a -2 penalty to attack rolls, damage, saves, and skill checks until the end of the encounter out of shame.
Non-Combatant: -10 on all melee attacks.
The feats they took were very effective, so I think this balancing is definitely in order - what do you think?
I could really use the tips, I don't want to run a highly powered adventured from the get-go.

I think you may have taken them too far to be honest. Extra feats are nice, but flaws are supposed to be slightly more painful than feats are helpful. So for example, you can get +2 to a save with a feat, but get -3 for a flaw.

And the stubborn pride thing sounds too much of turning roleplay into mechanics. Save that kind of stuff for roleplaying instead of trying to design bad flaws around it. What's gonna end up happening is that the party is gonna withdraw, he's gonna be left there, and just die. Instead let HIM decide whether he wants to withdraw or not in shame.

If you don't want to run a high powered game, just don't use flaws altogether, that sounds like what you'd prefer anyway.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If you don't want to have a high-powered adventure, don't allow extra feats. No matter what the penalties are, more feat slots make certain synergies possible (or possible earlier) that will raise the power level.

Stubborn Pride may be a problem because it takes away control of your character. Many players are very annoyed when that happens.
Other than that i'd say it's okay. The numbers are significant enough, but then so are the original flaws imo.
As long as you make sure that people take flaws that are somewhat meaningful to their build i don't see a problem. No non-combatant for casters, for example, though i'd still allow shaky since it significantly impacts their spell selection.

[bendking]

About the stubborn pride - I don't think he would mind, we already discussed it.
And about allowing feats overall - I would take them away if I hadn't already allowed them in the first place.
As it is, taking them away would make them both rethink their entire build and would make the Bard be very in-effective (making the game boring for him, something quite bad when you're playing a game)
The Archer is also very happy being an effective and powerful, and taking that away might make them him have less fun playing (again, which is the whole point).
I'm in quite a pickle.

[Gildedragon]

Leave the flaws as are, give some to their enemies and NPCs
As they are they are pretty balanced; yeah an extra feat is great, but it is a first level feat and that limits the options a lot. Relax and play on, and up the power level slightly if you feel the PCs are too powerful.

[Brookshw]

I'm going to disagree with others and say stubborn pride is okay, its a trade off they accept in the first place by taking it. If you don't want a high power game you might want to just disallow flaws in the first place.

[toapat]

Stubborn Pride: If you engage a creature, you must continue to battle that creature until the encounter ends or the creature is defeated or flees, even if it would be tactically sound to withdraw to help an ally or retreat from a losing battle. You can only withdraw by making a successful Will save, DC 15 + 1/2 your HD. If you succeed you may withdraw or change targets, but take a -2 penalty to attack rolls, damage, saves, and skill checks until the end of the encounter out of shame.

You either are trying to simulate Bravado or Implacable. and its hard to tell. Your attempt is both far more penalizing and far less elegant then just taking both flaws from Dragon.

Bravado negates all dodge bonuses to AC. Permanently.

Implacable gives you iirc -3 to all non-spelldamage rolls if you move out of an opponent's threatened square. Enemies can still flee you though.


Also remember that players are supposed to take flaws that will impact their characters, not just the free bonuses like Non-combatant on a ranged oor shaky on melee

[Gildedragon]

Actually shaky on a melee and non c on ranged are precisely what is expected. Players will minimize their penalties
Flaws are supposed to have a mechanical effect (no giving up heavy armor when you're a monk or wizard) but they are not meant to cripple your character (-2 to melee on a lvl 1 melee fighter is crippling)

[A.A.King]

Actually shaky on a melee and non c on ranged are precisely what is expected. Players will minimize their penalties
Flaws are supposed to have a mechanical effect (no giving up heavy armor when you're a monk or wizard) but they are not meant to cripple your character (-2 to melee on a lvl 1 melee fighter is crippling)

Of course player's will minimize their penalties but shaky on melee combatant has no real effect. Theoretically you have limited yourself more by making "Ranged Combat" more difficult but in practice "Ranged Combat" was never really going to come up for you anyway. You essentially get a free feat. The problem seems to be the power that both characters have gained from using these free feats. The penalty of Shaky or Non-Combatant isn't going to affect that power at all.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Of course player's will minimize their penalties but shaky on melee combatant has no real effect. Theoretically you have limited yourself more by making "Ranged Combat" more difficult but in practice "Ranged Combat" was never really going to come up for you anyway. You essentially get a free feat. The problem seems to be the power that both characters have gained from using these free feats. The penalty of Shaky or Non-Combatant isn't going to affect that power at all.

If your mundanes never ever have to use a ranged weapon your monsters should start using some tactics. Similarly, a spellcaster is hindered by shaky in that a lot of good spells are ranged touch attacks, which are now pretty much useless to him.
The case you want to avoid is a non-gish wizard picking up non-combatant since he was never going to use melee attacks anyway, so he loses nothing.

Or you could restrict flaws to those with an universal impact such as the save and initative lowering ones.