How many DMs out there allow flaws? or traits?

[Pinkie Pyro]

I've always allowed flaws in my games, though I warn players that I get to pick them for the character.

As for traits, I allow them, though I usually tend to have players multiply the effects by 4, as +1 to 1 skill is comically minimal, while +4 might actually matter.

what about you?

[OldTrees1]

I allow flaws and traits (even ones the PC and I create on the spot) but I require those choices to follow good game design. Aka "a meaningful cost paying for the chosen benefit". This "good game design" standard is also used for all other content at my table.

I like the +4/-4 idea, but since advantages are leveraged better than disadvantages, I would have it be +2/-4 for skills(unless the penalized skill is frequently used like Perception).

[Averis Vol]

Flaws are actually the one thing I use dnd wiki for. They have a huge list of them. Some of them are laughably terrible, some are just plain silly, but for the most part, they're pretty okay, but that's probably just the cause of "if you make enough, some are bound to be good." If they just want something to get a bonus feat for, we do that, but if they want more in game benefits, we sit down and come up with one that fits the character and backstory.

As for traits.....Eh, I don't care. they can take up to two if they want.

[SiuiS]

I like the concept but I change the execution. I prefer my flaws to have a cash-in value. Rather than a number penalty, once per session, teh DM or another player can cash in your falw to give you a cue you need to follow, or similar. This ranges from starstruck, a generic flaw that has you at social penalty against the preferred sex, letting someone decide you're head over heels for this particular person, and it allows for the barbarian standard "murky eyes" to become a miss on a ranged attack.

My favorite was the one based on Frankenstein, wherein you can make dramatic decisions based on your own hubris rather than any sense of right or wrong... And any player or DM could enforce this.

[RhoTheWanderer]

As a DM, I haven't used either of 'em. It's a nice idea, but I'm somewhat hesitant on it for the following reasons:
1. While it gives players who RP particular facets of their characters in-game drawbacks to back it up (while simultaneously giving them a tangible benefit beyond RP xp), that can weaken the characters abilities mechanically in one area while improving their abilities in another. If implemented well in the right group, this can work. However, it can potentially lead to a lesser version of a "glass canon" issue if it makes them terribly weak in one area, but much stronger in another. All-in-all, it lends actual mechanics to an area that can manage without it. If the players are RP-ing in a way that is constructive to the game, give them a little extra RP xp or (for a more balanced approach) allow some kind of minor magic item (like a luck blade with no wishes left) to find its way into the hands of the pc (bonus points if it's the direct result in-game of the character's actions).
2. Unless the flaws actually become an issue from time to time, they're just extra bonus feats with no extra cost to the player.

My current dnd group is using UA flaws though.

Flaws are actually the one thing I use dnd wiki for. [...] As for traits.....Eh, I don't care. they can take up to two if they want.
I've never been in a group that used traits, but a fairly low-op group (my first dnd group:smallbiggrin:) that I used to play with was using the dnd wiki for flaws for our last few campaigns before we disbanded. And I agree with EVERYTHING you said about dnd wiki flaws. It's too bad that the group disbanded, I found a few flaws on there that would have been great (read as: hilariously accurate) for a stereotypical "dashing, ne'er-do-well, swashbuckling rogue.":smallsigh: One of these days I'll play that character, with or without the mechanics to back it up.

[BWR]

I use traits I don't use flaws in PF. If my players wanted to use flaws, I'd probably allow it in general (some might be considered not appropriate for my tastes - I haven't looked at them closely).
Maybe it's just my AM love showing but I prefer flaws that pervade the character, not just inflict some minor mechanical penalty. In L5R (and our d20 game with converted Disads), for instance, Unlucky - which allows the GM to force you to reroll something 1-3 times a session - is played up in such a way that unluck is always there. The PC is a bad luck magnet. If a servant trips and spills something, you know who is going to get it in their lap. If the road is muddy, you just know who is going to slip and fall. If a random samurai is spoiling for a fight, you know who is going to accidentally brush up against his sword.

[Sir Garanok]

Depends on the flaw but generally yes,
especially when it is used to add some role play spice to the character.

[Averis Vol]

I've never been in a group that used traits, but a fairly low-op group (my first dnd group:smallbiggrin:) that I used to play with was using the dnd wiki for flaws for our last few campaigns before we disbanded. And I agree with EVERYTHING you said about dnd wiki flaws. It's too bad that the group disbanded, I found a few flaws on there that would have been great (read as: hilariously accurate) for a stereotypical "dashing, ne'er-do-well, swashbuckling rogue.":smallsigh: One of these days I'll play that character, with or without the mechanics to back it up.

Yea! I mean, no ones going to play a friggen quadriplegic, but I'd play with the pyromaniac flaw.

[SiuiS]

As a DM, I haven't used either of 'em. It's a nice idea, but I'm somewhat hesitant on it for the following reasons:
1. While it gives players who RP particular facets of their characters in-game drawbacks to back it up (while simultaneously giving them a tangible benefit beyond RP xp), that can weaken the characters abilities mechanically in one area while improving their abilities in another. If implemented well in the right group, this can work. However, it can potentially lead to a lesser version of a "glass canon" issue if it makes them terribly weak in one area, but much stronger in another. All-in-all, it lends actual mechanics to an area that can manage without it. If the players are RP-ing in a way that is constructive to the game, give them a little extra RP xp or (for a more balanced approach) allow some kind of minor magic item (like a luck blade with no wishes left) to find its way into the hands of the pc (bonus points if it's the direct result in-game of the character's actions).
2. Unless the flaws actually become an issue from time to time, they're just extra bonus feats with no extra cost to the player.

You could cut out the middle man, give people room for feats, and just tell them that you'll take advantage of dramatic moments to torque the narrative?

[Jeff the Green]

I like the concept but I change the execution. I prefer my flaws to have a cash-in value. Rather than a number penalty, once per session, teh DM or another player can cash in your falw to give you a cue you need to follow, or similar. This ranges from starstruck, a generic flaw that has you at social penalty against the preferred sex, letting someone decide you're head over heels for this particular person, and it allows for the barbarian standard "murky eyes" to become a miss on a ranged attack.

My favorite was the one based on Frankenstein, wherein you can make dramatic decisions based on your own hubris rather than any sense of right or wrong... And any player or DM could enforce this.

That's awesome. Also very FATEy, which is something I approve of. I may have to appropriate it, though I'll have to find an appropriate time frame when you can use it since I play mostly PbP.

[Mithril Leaf]

Whenever I DM I allow any 1st or 2nd party flaws and put them on the fast feat path used by Pathfinder because feats are far too few. Having more feats also helps mundanes and lower tier class proportionally much more than casters and upper tier ones.

[Vhaidara]

My groups all run with them, but each flaw has to be GM approved for the individual character, it has to be played, and it has to matter.

I'm actually considering doing what SiuS does and steal from FATE, because that's an awesome system.

[Piggy Knowles]

I'm not a fan of flaws. Nine times out of ten they're basically power grabs, with players choosing flaws that have the least possible mechanical drawback first, and coming up with an RP justification second.

Listen, if you want to play a flawed character, then play a flawed character. I don't understand why your flaws give you bonus feats.

It's not that I think extra feats are overpowered or anything, by the way. I've run multiple games with bonus feats given at chargen or with accelerated feat gain on level up. I know that feats are a great way to customize a character, and that a lot of cool (and not particularly game-breaking) strategies require long feat trees. I just don't like tying those bonus feats to a flaw.

Traits don't bother me as much, for whatever reason.

[Vhaidara]

Listen, if you want to play a flawed character, then play a flawed character. I don't understand why your flaws give you bonus feats.

Because asking for a feat in exchange for a flaw sounds like less of a power grab than just asking for a feat. It isn't, but it sounds like you're giving something up.

Also, because WotC has said that by taking a flaw you can get a feat.

[NichG]

I allow both. In general, I think most characters (who eventually want to enter various PrCs) are option-starved at low levels, so I don't really mind if everyone gets a couple of free feats so they don't have to spend everything they get on prerequisites that won't matter for 6 (or 11) levels. For me, its kind of like adding a little dash of E6 to the base game.

[Piggy Knowles]

Because asking for a feat in exchange for a flaw sounds like less of a power grab than just asking for a feat. It isn't, but it sounds like you're giving something up.

Also, because WotC has said that by taking a flaw you can get a feat.

Well yeah. It sounds like less of a power grab, and players can claim that the flaw is just so essential to their character. But in most cases? It usually isn't.

Again, I've got no problems with saying, "Hey, guys? This build is only going to get a total of 7 feats over 20 levels that might take us three years of gaming to see. I can't really play the character I want to play with this structure. Any chance we can change things up a bit?" And I always encourage players to create flawed characters, and bring those flaws to bear in games. But I think that picking off a laundry list of flaws in an attempt to nab an extra feat or two is worse for roleplaying, not better.

(That said... I've never once turned down flaws in a game where they were offered. :smalltongue:)

[Vhaidara]

Again, I've got no problems with saying, "Hey, guys? This build is only going to get a total of 7 feats over 20 levels that might take us three years of gaming to see. I can't really play the character I want to play with this structure. Any chance we can change things up a bit?" And I always encourage players to create flawed characters, and bring those flaws to bear in games. But I think that picking off a laundry list of flaws in an attempt to nab an extra feat or two is worse for roleplaying, not better.

Sometimes, though, you're working with a GM (usually with newer ones) who don't like giving out feats for free, because they're still figuring out what they're doing. It's part of why I generally prefer the flaws from Dragon Magazine, which generally give heavier penalties, but in more specific circumstances (-4 to hit, but only vs opposite gender or against unarmed foes). That example would be 2 flaws (Chivalrous Courtesy and Code of Arms) that fit very well with a classic knight: against women and unarmed foes, your heart just isn't in the blow, since it isn't honorable to fight such foes.

[dysprosium]

I'm usually the DM for my group and I don't allow flaws. I don't like them. It is a power grab (and my players don't need the extra power . . . ).

I've played with traits before but those were mostly in Pathfinder, where they are tied into the adventure path itself.

[killem2]

I did when we played d&d, but we used Cryptosnark Games The Book of Distinctions & Drawbacks. It is a wild book lol.

[Novawurmson]

I use Pathfinder's traits (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/traits) in my games, though players can always opt to take any one skill as a class skill and gain a +1 bonus to it in place of any trait.

[jjcrpntr]

I let my players use flaws and traits but only from sources that I have (IE no wiki). I have a copy of the pathfinder flaws PDF printed out they can pick from. Otherwise if the trait isn't in one of the books I own it's off limits. This is mostly to stay in tune with my base rule that anything they want to use (IE archtype, class, spell, whatever) must be from an approved source which is limited to books I own. I prefer having the books to pdfs, just a personal thing.

My thing with flaws is I want them to be something that actually has an impact on the character. If someone wants to take the flaw where they just really hate x race they can't take "fairy" because that's just stupid and unless I go out of my way to annoy them with it, it will have almost no impact on their character. Then again I try to give a bonus if my players play out stuff like their flaws in roleplay situations.

[137beth]

I allow flaws for two reasons:
1) I just like the idea of heroes with key weaknesses.
2) Everyone is feat-starved in 3.5, so providing a way to get a couple of extra feats is not a bad idea.


I don't use traits--mechanically they add very little and flavorfully they add nothing that a roleplayer can't add themselves.

[Curmudgeon]

I encourage use of flaws. Of course, I make sure the players are aware that they will encounter situations where the drawbacks actually matter. That is, choosing Shaky (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#shaky) and building a melee specialist will not stop enemies from keeping their distance and making ranged attacks.

I agree with 137ben: everyone is feat-starved in D&D. Many characters only get to choose 7 feats in 20 levels, and there are literally thousands of feats. :smallannoyed:

Traits are fine, too, but I don't push them the way I do feats. As a player, I often choose the Quick (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterTraits.htm#quick) trait; that one's hard to match if you want to emphasize character mobility.

[Firechanter]

Personally, I don't like flaws; it's frontloading a bit much. But more importantly, most flaws are simply not very heroic, and as such kind of inhibit a heroic play style. Though I could see myself allowing a single flaw if I DM again (currently I am only player).
However, I do use the Pathfinder feat progression for 3.5, i.e. one feat every odd level instead of every third. It only really kicks in late-game, though -- for the first 12 levels, you only have one feat more than with the standard rule. Which is why I consider allowing a flaw next time.

Traits are pretty cool, I am a sucker for the Quick trait myself.

[Segev]

Given that flaws are 1:1 for feats, I've occasionally wondered what a character would look like if the feat he took with a flaw only applied when he was suffering the ill effects of his flaw.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I allow both as written. I'm thinking about just giving a bonus feat or two at level 1 and just banning flaws, though.

[OldTrees1]

Given that flaws are 1:1 for feats, I've occasionally wondered what a character would look like if the feat he took with a flaw only applied when he was suffering the ill effects of his flaw.
Due to prerequisite trees and their tendency towards the weaker classes, I would suggest having the tied feat change as more feats are gained. Maybe Power Attack is tied to the flaw at 1st level but it is Shocktrooper tied to the flaw at 6th level.

This would definitely create a "greater performance under pressure" feel to the character. Although it would require the flaws be adjusted so that the player can intend to suffer from them. Perhaps like a "penalty when outnumbered" flaw.

[Lightlawbliss]

one thing I have my players do with flaws is they have to show that that flaw would impact their character: how that character would have trained, how they act, or simular. I find it perfectly reasonable that a person who is bad at ranged combat would go ubercharger to reduce his natural weakness but find it hard to believe somebody would learn to maximize their spells because they can't hit somebody in melee

[Vogonjeltz]

I've always allowed flaws in my games, though I warn players that I get to pick them for the character.

As for traits, I allow them, though I usually tend to have players multiply the effects by 4, as +1 to 1 skill is comically minimal, while +4 might actually matter.

what about you?

The only time I hear anyone bring up flaws is when they're exploiting the system, so I'm not really inclined to find them useful from a DMs perspective. Actually, come to think on it, I can't think of a single time flaws were discussed that were for roleplaying reasons.

Traits on the other hand seem largely sound, and a good tool for roleplaying.

That being said, if I allowed flaws in a game, I would mercilessly exploit whichever flaws the characters pick.

[Brookshw]

Not particularly interested in them personally and our default is that UA content isn't in use. Can't recall the players ever requesting to use them so haven't had to make a call one way or another. Probably let them but hasn't come up.

[AugustNights]

I allow and encourage flaws, and work with my players to homebrew up appropriate flaws to suit particular desires. There is generally a noble's agreement between me and my players that they will role-play their flaws out. A particular fun instance was an Artificer character who had taken a flaw that heavily penalized their Heal checks. They believed that wrenches, oil, and similar mechanical tools were equally fit in organic machines as they were for the inorganic. They often insisted upon attempting to use their Heal check whenever they found someone injured or the like, insisting that they were an expert at fixing things.

Traits are alright, I don't so much encourage them, but I allow them. None of my players tend to delve too deep into rule stuff, so it hasn't come up, yet.

[jjcrpntr]

The only time I hear anyone bring up flaws is when they're exploiting the system, so I'm not really inclined to find them useful from a DMs perspective. Actually, come to think on it, I can't think of a single time flaws were discussed that were for roleplaying reasons.

Traits on the other hand seem largely sound, and a good tool for roleplaying.

That being said, if I allowed flaws in a game, I would mercilessly exploit whichever flaws the characters pick.

I like flaws for when players are the pretty special snowflake that was the last surviving member of X village or whatever.

Case in point. One of my players is a barbarian who's backstory is that he found his father (of course the chief of the tribe) beating his mother. So the PC killed his father to protect his mother and had to run away from the tribe to save himself. This player took the Outlaw flaw though wanted fugitive would have fit a little better. This gives me an avenue for a small side quest for the party. It also is one of the rare times when a players backstory can actually have an impact later in the game.

But yes, in general I agree many of the flaws are just stupid fluff that have no bearing on the game from a roleplay reason.

[jjcrpntr]

I allow and encourage flaws, and work with my players to homebrew up appropriate flaws to suit particular desires. There is generally a noble's agreement between me and my players that they will role-play their flaws out.


This is a cool idea, but unfortunately I think only 2 of my players are either creative enough or willing to put in the effort to do this. Which is fine, but it would be interesting to see what they came up with.

[Phelix-Mu]

Flaws are a great tool at higher levels of op and game-proficiency. They aren't really necessary with a starting group or a low-power game, though of course players in such a game would still appreciate them.

Mainly, I find that both flaws and traits are good ways to fine-tune the power-level of pcs and npcs without having to resort to bigger guns, templates, more levels, more powerful races, etc. A useful tool sometimes, but not something that the functioning of the average game hinges on.

Of course, the fluff that they engender is pure win. I love fluff.

[Troacctid]

I'm totally fine with flaws in my games. Sometimes in 3.5 you just need a few extra feats to make your build work, and I'm happy to accommodate that. Flaws tend to make a character more specialized in their role, and specialization promotes teamwork.

[Zanos]

I allow both as written. I'm thinking about just giving a bonus feat or two at level 1 and just banning flaws, though.
This. I'm pretty lenient with PC power, though. I give them a lot of nice things.

[The Insanity]

Just recently I decided to allow players to take as many flaws as they wish (or at least set the limit to some higher number, like 5 or 6). I was inspired to that decision by a fun 3.5 fancomic.

[heavyfuel]

People saying they allow for flaws because characters are feat starved is something I just don't understand. If you're DMing and want them to have more feats, just give them more feats. Sure this is a houserule that is borderline rule 0, but I'm playing in a campaign where you get a feat per level and 2 at lv1 and this makes everyone happy. I always gave PF progression for feats, but I might just implement this houserule for next campaign because it's so good.

Regardless of Houserule, I dislike Flaws mostly because of the table I play is composed of 3 guys that are hardcore RPers and 2 that are power-gamey, and I don't feel like giving the power gamers even more tools to widen the power gap when compared to the other 3. Not to mention, everyone always picks the same 2 out 3 flaws (murky-eyed, and one of the -2 to attack rolls) that's it's not even a matter of considering which to choose by this point.

Traits are the same. Everyone always picks Quick as their trait of choice, which really dims on their purpose of differentiating one character from another

[The Insanity]

If you're DMing and want them to have more feats, just give them more feats.
Why would I do that when I can allow flaws and therefore force give my players the opportunity to roleplay their character's weaknesses?

[Vhaidara]

Regardless of Houserule, I dislike Flaws mostly because of the table I play is composed of 3 guys that are hardcore RPers and 2 that are power-gamey, and I don't feel like giving the power gamers even more tools to widen the power gap when compared to the other 3. Not to mention, everyone always picks the same 2 out 3 flaws (murky-eyed, and one of the -2 to attack rolls) that's it's not even a matter of considering which to choose by this point.

Look up the Dragon Magazine flaws and limit them to those. Require that you approve the flaw before they use it (and know what they're building before you approve it)


Traits are the same. Everyone always picks Quick as their trait of choice, which really dims on their purpose of differentiating one character from another

That's a problem with Quick, not with traits. Quick is arguably a trait that is more powerful than a feat. +10ft for -1hp/level vs +5ft in no-light armor (Dash). I only say arguably because there is a tradeoff for Quick

[Ettina]

Yea! I mean, no ones going to play a friggen quadriplegic, but I'd play with the pyromaniac flaw.

Now I want to make a quadriplegic psion just to prove you wrong.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Isn't half the fun of GURPS playing a character who's basically a nonfunctional lump of flesh who also happens to ahve near-infinite cosmic power as a result?

[Vhaidara]

Isn't half the fun of GURPS playing a character who's basically a nonfunctional lump of flesh who also happens to ahve near-infinite cosmic power as a result?

A friend of mine, when we were experimenting with GURPS, made Stephen Hawking, complete with power over the space time continuum. And raged when his girlfriend (our GM) rejected it since she had said nothing people can't actually do.

[Beneath]

I don't think I'm going to allow them in the campaign I'm starting. Maybe if my players make a case for them.

I don't think flaws do what they say on the tin, RP-wise. Maybe the Dragon Magazine flaws are different, but a sorcerer with STR 6 is not developed further by the Noncombatant flaw, or arguably by any of the ones in the SRD.

[TheCrowing1432]

I generally find that flaws are hard to balance.

They are either too weak and therefore make handing over another feat way too easy.

Or they are extremely detrimental and would make that character unfun.

So, I dont allow them

[Averis Vol]

Now I want to make a quadriplegic psion just to prove you wrong.

That sounds just about my luck :smalltongue:

[LentilNinja]

I use both but I personally prefer the idea of the DM choosing the flaws. As a DM, I'd discuss with the player what they want the bonus feats for and how their character plays. Its then I'd choose the flaws that don't directly hurt them (noncombatant for a melee character) but wouldn't give them the flaws that stop nothing for them (Slow for a caster)