Flaws discussion

[torrasque666]

After lurking around here for a while I tend to see one of the first questions asked when advising a build is "Are flaws allowed?", which is understandable. They are an alternate rule after all, and they can be used to get more feats. However, I will also frequently see things such as "Take [flaw], it won't impact your build much". and that got me thinking. Isn't the entire point of flaws to make a character, ya know, flawed? It doesn't have to be a massive penalty(like a martial character taking both of the penalty flaws, or that flaw that makes you sickened simply by drinking a potion) but aren't they supposed to impose one? I mean, I just saw a build where it was suggested that a Warforged take Insomniac. A creature that doesn't sleep, taking a flaw that makes it harder to sleep. Yeah, that seems right.

What are you guy's thoughts on flaws, other than for free feats? Should they actually be meaningful? Or should the ones that will never harm your character in any way be sought out first and foremost?

[Aegis013]

Personally, I encourage players to take flaws that won't hurt them. I've seriously considered just house ruling two free feats. They're very helpful in making a character feel more customizable, especially at early levels, in my opinion, and at least in 3.5, feats are a resource which I think is too scarce most of the time compared to their general benefit. Some feats are exceptional of course, but generally, not every feat you take will help as much as Power Attack, Shock Trooper or the like.

[Red Fel]

I have also noticed that people tend to take flaws that don't particularly penalize them. From an optimization perspective, that makes sense.

However, consider the language (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm):
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.

The goal is to create meaningful penalties. In the example above, the rules discourage granting a flaw based solely on spellcasting, given that a non-caster will basically take the flaw as a source of free feats.

Now, the RAW does not require the penalties to be meaningful. It's simply encouraged. And as is often the case, aspirational language tends to be ignored. But I generally agree that flaws should actually be meaningful, and have a substantial impact. Otherwise, the PCs are basically getting free feats; if the DM wanted that, he could have simply said, "Everybody take a bonus feat." Either that, or you're explicitly rewarding optimization*; those who know how will pick flaws that least harm them, while those who don't will pick flaws they like, resulting in an even greater than usual disparity between those with highly effective characters and those with ineffective characters.

* I'm not saying optimization is bad; I'm saying it doesn't need to be rewarded. A well-optimized, highly-effective character is its own reward. That, and the fat loot said character can acquire for the party. That's also a reward.

[Cranthis]

I believe flaws should be meaningful as well, but there are some situations where I feel it is ok to have less meaning. For instance, a melee fighter taking the shaky flaw. It wont usually affect him, but the one time he has to throw or shoot something, its gonna suck for him.

[Vhaidara]

I really like using these flaws (http://eberronunlimited.wikidot.com/flaws), which are very flavorful and aren't as binary on whether or not it hurts you. I mean, look at the Pathetic flaw. Any druid starting past level 5 will gladly take that and hit their Str.

Meanwhile, I took Solitary Paragon on one of my warforged, who was a gladiator. He didn't care at all about flanking, to the point where my fellow players got mad at me for moving to the closest square, rather than tumbling (no chance of failure) for a spot where the barbarian could next turn 5ft step to flank.

TL;DR: I agree with the recommendation: flaws should hurt you. I do also agree with Aegis: free feats. I think you should do both. More feats help everyone, and since the gap between mundanes and casters is fundamental to the classes, I think mundanes benefit more from the feats than casters. It won't change anything, but maybe you get a thing to do sooner than normal.

[JusticeZero]

I disallow them for precisely this reason. Also, flaws tend to be a pain in the neck even when used correctly. I remember someone commenting that they made a character who was claustrophobic, and had the GM okay that. Then the first session started with the words "When you arrive at the dungeon.." They tend to end up either powered up or pointless.

[kkplx]

If you run a 3.5 game, the number of feats gained without the two flaws is painfully restricted.

Personally I run my games with 2 flaws and pathfinder feat progression, if I can, or at least one of the two.

If you're sceptical of Flaws in general, try out the PF progression - less power upfront, but more feats in the long run.

[Blackhawk748]

I agree that flaws should hurt you, i mean otherwise your just snagging two extra feats. Now for this reason this is why i usually take Murky Eyed, Frail, or Shaky. Murky Eyed is situational but it sucks when it pops up, Frail ALWAYS affects you its like having a -2 Con for HP, and Shaky works on pretty much everybody because you eventually need to shoot something that flies.

On the flip side of things Flaws shouldnt cripple you either.

[A Tad Insane]

Re:flaws should hinder you
Why would a fighter, an expert on all things hitting things with weapons, be a non-combatant?

[Blackhawk748]

Re:flaws should hinder you
Why would a fighter, an expert on all things hitting things with weapons, be a non-combatant?

I agree, some flaws are just plan silly on certain characters, however the flaw should at least affect you character. Some flaws wont actually affect certain characters, and those are the kind that bother me.

[Karnith]

Re:flaws should hinder you
Why would a fighter, an expert on all things hitting things with weapons, be a non-combatant?
If she's an archer, and doesn't get into melee that much?
Yes I know that you were being rhetorical
Honestly, I don't like flaws that much, but I also don't like how feat starved 3.5 characters tend to be, so were I to get to the point where I wanted my PCs to have extra feats, I'd just skip the flaws and just give characters free bonus feats.

[Suichimo]

The way I've always looked at them is that they are something inherent since birth. Bad eyesight, weak constitution, or even something as minor as daydreaming. Some of these, though, could be things that develop later on in life, but I imagine all of them would develop before your first level. Now, without going to the character that does something specifically because (s)he is inept at it/told (s)he can't do it/etc. trope, what reason would a character who is Shaky become an archer for?

[Vhaidara]

I agree with a mix of acquired and inherent. For example, one of my characters has Insomnia as the result of trauma they underwent shortly before becoming an adventurer, and the nightmares keep them from sleeping.

[Flickerdart]

I recommend restricting Flaws to the SRD ones; a lot of the Dragons ones are really dumb.

I don't consider Flaws to be all that powerful even when the flaw is circumvented, though. Big whoop, you got a 1st level feat. 1st level feats are a dime a dozen - you get one for free, one for being a Human, one from an innumerable number of class dips, etc. Since you can't meet many prerequisites at level 1, flaws are mostly useful for picking up junk feats that are themselves used to qualify for the thing people actually want.

[heavyfuel]

I dislike flaws because they're dumb. Seriously... Either a character will pick a flaw that will never be used, giving him a free feat (insomniac warforged), or it will be meaningful without making sense (non-combatant melee fighter)

If you're going to allow flaws, I'd say don't, but give them 2 extra feats at character creation. 3.5 is really stingy with feats, and that jump hampers character creation, especially with the huge amount of feat chains and feat taxes.

I mean, if flaws are allowed, there's ZERO reason not to pick as many as you can. This may be good for the optimizer in the group, but maybe the role-player doesn't want his character having bad vision. It's exactly like Red Fel said, optimization is it's own reward, and doesn't need to be rewarded further.

[Oddman80]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, picking a flaw that has minimal impact towards your planned build makes sense in every regard. while it is true that people plan the build and then pick the least hurtful flaw after the fact, you need to then play the tape in reverse.

Flaws are things that are a part of the character before they ever decided to take their first adventuring level. The flaws are things these people have lived with their whole lives. They are known shortcomings.

If you have a bad limp, nobody is going to be up in arms over the fact that you aren't going out for the high school track team.

If you are agoraphobic, it probably isn't going to surprise anyone that you walked past the park ranger booth at the career fair.

In fact having an obvious shortcoming in one part of your life, can help give a person focus earlier on, and help lead them to the things that they can and do excel at. Hmmm... That kinda sounds like a "free feat". I wonder why....

[Anlashok]

I see two big schools of thought here:

-On the one hand, a flaw that does nothing to hurt you but still gives you a feat feels cheesy

-On the other hand, from the perspective of verisimilitude. While there may be some people who persist anyways, it makes sense that someone who's "relatively inept at melee combat" or "has shaky hands and can't aim properly" would decide to become a wizard instead.

I generally go with ignoring Flaws unless they're compelling and just giving everyone a better feat progression.

[Sir Chuckles]

I generally allow them, but I do agree that sometimes they are a clear form of min-maxing. But at the same time, taking a flaw that directly gives you a -2 to hitting things when you're whole point of living, your job title, your main method of survival is "hitting things", it actually makes them less believable, for me.

It's why those flaws from Dragon, the ones posted by Keledrath, are some of my favorites. Divine Gestures, only usable by Divine Casters, gives the person spell failure as if they were Arcane. A clear disadvantage for a Cleric, but an Archivist or Cloistered Cleric is hurt less, and it's still adding something to the character. The numerical penalty flaws in Unearthed Arcana are pretty bland when compared to something like "No Time for Book Learning" or "Stubby Fingers".

[Pinkie Pyro]

I always make my players take RP related flaws, that will actually come up. Makes it alot more interesting, and it's not a big deal for +2 feats.

[Zweisteine]

I always make my players take RP related flaws, that will actually come up. Makes it alot more interesting, and it's not a big deal for +2 feats.
That makes some sense, but most of the default flaws apply very little to RP. Could you elaborate a bit?


I say it makes perfect sense to take flaws that don't impact you at all.
A person who tends to be shaky is not going to go and train to be an archer, because he's just bad at it. A person who lacks skill in combat isn't going to be a fighter, so he decides to be a wizard instead.
Of course, you could do it anyway, with the reasoning that your character really wanted to be an archer, or a fighter, or whatever, but then they probably would have trained the flaw out (i.e. never taken it, and used a lesser version as part of the character's background).

[Vhaidara]

I really like using these flaws (http://eberronunlimited.wikidot.com/flaws)


That makes some sense, but most of the default flaws apply very little to RP. Could you elaborate a bit?

I think these flaws are more used. They have pretty significant RP aspects.

[MrSinister]

When I run a game, I give the PCs the choice to pick one flaw for one feat, like normal. But the flaws we use are situational and usually come from the PC's backstory. I believe I stole this idea from whatever campaign setting produced that crazy Swashbuckling Adventures 3.0/3.5 book.

Basically, once each session, the PCs and the DM have the option to "trigger" each PC's flaw, once. For example, I had a character playing a rogue with the flaw that he was cursed at birth by darkness. (I had this whole lineage subquest in mind for him later, too). Well, he rolled a one on initiative once, so I had the curse manifest as the dragon they were fighting gaining more hit points as it became mysteriously covered in darkness. Stuff like that. Another character was a daydreaming bookworm AND monster researcher and hunter. Her flaw manifested in her becoming distracted and unable to act the first time she encountered a new monster (I think it was a golem).

The point is, the players REALLY loved these flaws and soon got into the groove of triggering them too. Some even triggered their own. It was much more fun and memorable than "you have -2 to hit with ranged weapons." Additionally, it encouraged them role play more because they had a non-mechanical thing to mess with along with class powers and such (lots of new players).

[thethird]

I believe flaws should be bypassable, i.e. if someone is bad at archery he won't pick an archery related career path.

[dascarletm]

I have also noticed that people tend to take flaws that don't particularly penalize them. From an optimization perspective, that makes sense.

However, consider the language (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm):

The goal is to create meaningful penalties. In the example above, the rules discourage granting a flaw based solely on spellcasting, given that a non-caster will basically take the flaw as a source of free feats.

Now, the RAW does not require the penalties to be meaningful. It's simply encouraged. And as is often the case, aspirational language tends to be ignored. But I generally agree that flaws should actually be meaningful, and have a substantial impact. Otherwise, the PCs are basically getting free feats; if the DM wanted that, he could have simply said, "Everybody take a bonus feat." Either that, or you're explicitly rewarding optimization*; those who know how will pick flaws that least harm them, while those who don't will pick flaws they like, resulting in an even greater than usual disparity between those with highly effective characters and those with ineffective characters.

* I'm not saying optimization is bad; I'm saying it doesn't need to be rewarded. A well-optimized, highly-effective character is its own reward. That, and the fat loot said character can acquire for the party. That's also a reward.

From the quote you posted I'm not seeing language that says it's encouraged. It clearly says the flaw must have a meaningful impact. Determining what is meaningful of course is more subjective.