Severe Flaws?

[Rubik]

Many people complain that regular flaws just aren't harsh enough, but others say that making them harsher than they already are negates any real benefit.

Let's say that, for the sake of argument, we have regular flaws which are worth +1 feat, and severe flaws which are worth +2 feats, using the same rules, and a player can choose between them using the rules in Unearthed Arcana. What flaws would be severe enough to be worth 2 feats without absolutely crippling a character?

Would the following qualify?

Light Blind
You are rendered blind in areas of bright light. In areas of light brighter than shadowy illumination, you are dazzled.

[PersonMan]

I'd say the issue with severe Flaws is that you either give constant, large penalties to a lot of things (like being blind in daylight) which I would say isn't worth taking just for two feats unless it's a game that will mostly take place at night or underground, or you run into the old issue of 'how can I make a Flaw relevant if it mostly just cuts out a set of options?' such as the whole 'take ranged attack reducing Flaw when you don't fight at range anyways', which is hard to make relevant without just leaving the character unable to do anything.

Finding a balance will be tough. I think that things like save reducers, AC reducers to an extent, movement reducers can work, but otherwise there's only a smallish sweet spot of 'relevant often enough but not crippling'.

[Uncle Pine]

Unlucky
Your luck ran out the moment you were born... Or right before that. Whenever you make an attack roll, roll 2d20 and pick the lowest result. Whenever someone attacks you, she roll 2d20 and picks the highest result.

As a side note, I'd pick Light Blind if I were going to play a Warlock with the Darkness invocation.

[nedz]

I did play with the idea of negative feats at one point. I've never used these in a game because I wasn't sure about them — also what are feats worth ?

They also suffer from the same issues as flaws — though I do think that the skill based ones have potential, maybe if randomised ?

Some ideas

Clumsy

You get a -2 penalty on all Jump checks and Tumble checks.

Daydreamer

You get a -2 penalty on all Listen checks and Spot checks.

etc.

Odd shaped body

You find armour difficult to wear.
Reduce your armour proficiency by one step: Heavy becomes medium, medium become light, light becomes none.

Easily Distracted

You get a -4 penalty on Concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while on the defensive or while you are grappling or pinned.

Slow Reflexes

You get a -2 penalty on all Reflex saving throws.

etc.

Overweight

When running, you move three times your normal speed (if wearing medium, light, or no armor and carrying no more than a medium load) or twice your speed (if wearing heavy armor or carrying a heavy load). If you make a jump after a running start (see the Jump skill description), you gain a -4 penalty on your Jump check.

Taking the Run feat will negate these penalties, but not provide the usual benefits of that feat.

Weakness

You lose -3 hit points, you cannot be reduced to less than 1 HP.

A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

Many of the combat feats are impossibly to reverse, and negative metamagic feats are hard to make work.

[Firest Kathon]

Weakness
You lose -3 hit points, you cannot be reduced to less than 1 HP.
A character may gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.
Many of the combat feats are impossibly to reverse, and negative metamagic feats are hard to make work.

That is an awesome flaw. Not only do you gain hit points (lose a negative number => double negative), but you also cannot be killed by hp damage (since you cannot be reduced to less than 1 hp). And you get a feat for it! SCNR :smallwink:

[Evolved Shrimp]

Let's say that, for the sake of argument, we have regular flaws which are worth +1 feat, and severe flaws which are worth +2 feats.

I think that having two-feat flaws would exacerbate the problem that normal flaws already have: They are extremely difficult to balance.

If the disadvantages are too big and unavoidable, hardly anyone is going to take the flaw.
If the disadvantages just affect certain aspects of the character, players will take those flaws that don’t matter much for their characters.


In the end, the fact that the players can decide which flaws to take screws the system, I believe. Except for a few players who are really into roleplaying, most will take those flaws that do not hinder their character much, if at all.

So if you’re OK with giving the players even more power, two-feat flaws could be interesting. If not, they seem troublesome.

[Telonius]

Many people complain that regular flaws just aren't harsh enough, but others say that making them harsher than they already are negates any real benefit.

Let's say that, for the sake of argument, we have regular flaws which are worth +1 feat, and severe flaws which are worth +2 feats, using the same rules, and a player can choose between them using the rules in Unearthed Arcana. What flaws would be severe enough to be worth 2 feats without absolutely crippling a character?

Would the following qualify?

Light Blind
You are rendered blind in areas of bright light. In areas of light brighter than shadowy illumination, you are dazzled.

I'd have to ban a few items for that to work. (Blindfold of True Darkness and Goggles of the Golden Sun from MiC come to mind).

[Warrnan]

I don't think the severe flaw is the way to make flaws fair.

To me a character flaw is a problem someone has no control over. I think it would be fair for someone to roll randomly on a chart to gain a flaw. This would eliminate the problem of wizards taking flaws that nerf their melee and ranged weapon attacks, and other such tactics.

Flaws must be a problem and not something you can simply ignore, otherwise you are gaining a feat for free.

[Rubik]

How about broader-spectrum flaws, rather than steeper individual penalties?


Poor Vision
Your eyes are poorly adapted for life outside of the underground tunnels where you normally dwell. You are blinded in areas of bright light and are dazzled in anything more than shadowy illumination. You take double the penalty on Spot and Search checks when a penalty is applied, such as for range.* In addition, you take a -5 penalty to Spot and Search checks,* and the ranges for darkvision and low-light vision are halved. When you are subject to miss chances due to concealment, roll twice and take the worst result.

Note: These penalties do not apply when your sight is not involved, such as a rogue searching for traps with the Tactile Trapsmith feat.

[OldTrees1]

I don't think the severe flaw is the way to make flaws fair.

To me a character flaw is a problem someone has no control over. I think it would be fair for someone to roll randomly on a chart to gain a flaw. This would eliminate the problem of wizards taking flaws that nerf their melee and ranged weapon attacks, and other such tactics.

Flaws must be a problem and not something you can simply ignore, otherwise you are gaining a feat for free.

Your mechanic in your 2nd paragraph can frequently fail your criteria in your 3rd paragraph. I think your criteria is a sufficient mechanic on its own and does not need a random roll.

[khadgar567]

here is a severe flaw for you gents that may give three feats which called vestiphobia description (http://phobia.wikia.com/wiki/Vestiphobia)

[Warrnan]

Your mechanic in your 2nd paragraph can frequently fail your criteria in your 3rd paragraph. I think your criteria is a sufficient mechanic on its own and does not need a random roll.

This is true. Dm discretion must be used in games to attempt to satisfy both. The random roll is a way to literally let fate choose as players will always choose a flaw that affects them the least.

So I suppose the mechanic would be "random roll with dm approval required." allowing both Law and Chaos to have a hand in the final flaw. Hahaha.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Unskilled
At each level, you gain one fewer skill point than you normally would, given your class, race, and intelligence bonus. At first level, you gain four fewer skill points than you normally would, instead. This can reduce the number of skill points you gain to zero.

In addition, you cannot use a skill for any task with a DC higher than 10, unless you have at least 1 rank in that skill.

[Rubik]

here is a severe flaw for you gents that may give three feats which called vestiphobia description (http://phobia.wikia.com/wiki/Vestiphobia)This would segue well with Vow of Poverty, but this kind of thing should probably scale with your level, as equipment becomes more and more important as WBL increases. That, and there are ways to cheat around it if it's the constriction that you're afraid of. Taking Ghostly Grasp, forcing yourself to don your item allotment, casting a Chained Sequester on all of your items that don't need to be visible, and casting Persisted Ghostform or nabbing some other form of incorporeality. You're effectively corporeal due to Ghostly Grasp, and all of your items are both invisible and incorporeal, and therefor do not hinder you at all, while still giving you their magical benefits.

[nedz]

Well you could also do things like phobias — maybe based off the Ranger's Favoured enemy table, for options ?
Perhaps Shaken/Frightened based off a Will save with fairly low DC ?

I've had players role-play this sort of thing and it was quite amusing.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Unskilled
At each level, you gain one fewer skill point than you normally would, given your class, race, and intelligence bonus. At first level, you gain four fewer skill points than you normally would, instead. This can reduce the number of skill points you gain to zero.

In addition, you cannot use a skill for any task with a DC higher than 10, unless you have at least 1 rank in that skill.

Ow. Just ow. That is a fairly scary flaw.

Broad spectrum is the way to go. The flaw that punishes Concentration does literally nothing to a non-caster and can be avoided through skillful use of spells/class features even though it looks nasty on the surface.

This flaw, on the other hand, can be partially obviated with spells. Thing is about that though is it is still burning one resource for another and is fairly easy for the DM to try to exploit (especially the partial inability to make skill checks untrained).

[Rubik]

Does this work?


Vestiphobia
You have an unreasoning fear of clothing, especially that which constricts and constrains you. You suffer the shaken condition for wearing any visible or corporeal item which is considered clothing or armor, such as boots, pants, light/medium/heavy armor, a helmet, bracers, or vest, or especially tight and constricting items, such as a backpack, choker, or shackles. Wearing more than three of these items simultaneously forces a Will save (DC 14 + 2 per constricting item) once per minute to avoid suffering from the frightened condition, wherein you are forced to strip as quickly as possible, ignoring all other considerations short of immediate, life-threatening situations. If you are unable to remove the items and fail a second save, the condition increases to panicked, and you must remove the items immediately, regardless of threats to yourself or others. Wearing more than five such items increases the Will DC to 20 + 2 per item, and increases the condition to panicked on a failed save. If you are prevented from removing the constricting items and fail a save while panicked, the condition escalates to cowering until you are no longer prevented from removing the items, whereupon your condition becomes panicked, and you must remove the items.

Your condition returns to normal one round after all constricting items are removed.

You can wear loose, non-clothing items such as rings, bracelets, anklets, and other jewelry, and use held items without issue.

Unlike other flaws, the negative effects of Vestiphobia on your ability to utilize wealth increase as you gain levels; therefor, this flaw grants two feats at 1st level and one additional bonus feat at 5th level and every five levels thereafter.

This is not a mind-affecting effect.

[Andezzar]

I'd have to ban a few items for that to work. (Blindfold of True Darkness and Goggles of the Golden Sun from MiC come to mind).Why? If characters have problems in certain areas they need stuff or abilities to overcome them. Denying them those aids is like denying the character with a poor will save to get protection from evil or mind-blank on him. I guess the player should have made a wizard or other T1 character in the first place.


I don't think the severe flaw is the way to make flaws fair.

To me a character flaw is a problem someone has no control over. I think it would be fair for someone to roll randomly on a chart to gain a flaw. This would eliminate the problem of wizards taking flaws that nerf their melee and ranged weapon attacks, and other such tactics. Don't you think that breaks verisimilitude? How many acrobats with an impaired sense of balance do you know for example?



Flaws must be a problem and not something you can simply ignore, otherwise you are gaining a feat for free.You can ignore them, but you still suffer the consequences. A penalty on attack rolls for the wizard might not come into play often, but when it does the character is at a disadvantage. The (light) blind character also has to either adjust his adventuring, buy certain gear, or suffer the consequences.

[OldTrees1]

Don't you think that breaks verisimilitude? How many acrobats with an impaired sense of balance do you know for example?

Someone training hard enough for Skill to overcome lack of Natural Talent? Not many but it is an existing subset of note. Since that is realistic, the game world would have to deviate from reality in that precise area for it not to also conform to verisimilitude.

[Subaru Kujo]

Known Traitor:

A brand or some other similar mark that may have nuances that are vaguely misunderstood, but still marks the branded as a traitor, even if the viewer doesn't know the particular brand. The mark makes said nature (true or not) plain as day, in addition to causing a -4 penalty on Bluff, Diplomacy, and Gather Information checks.

I had this one on a half giant that I wanted to play, and thought it was severe enough to be noteworthy, but not too harmful.

[Rubik]

Known Traitor:

A brand or some other similar mark that may have nuances that are vaguely misunderstood, but still marks the branded as a traitor, even if the viewer doesn't know the particular brand. The mark makes said nature (true or not) plain as day, in addition to causing a -4 penalty on Bluff, Diplomacy, and Gather Information checks.

I had this one on a half giant that I wanted to play, and thought it was severe enough to be noteworthy, but not too harmful.That has no drawbacks at all, if a certain novel series is any indication. Despite being ridiculously easy to check, nobody ever will, no matter how nasty the consequences.

[Chronos]

The best system I've seen for flaws, is that you can take any flaw you want, of any severity, not limited to any list anywhere. But they don't give free feats. Instead, in any encounter where your flaw becomes relevant, if you manage to overcome the encounter anyway, you get 10%-25% bonus XP (as judged by the DM, depending on how relevant the flaw was). You want to be unable to speak in the presence of women, like Raj? Sure. Kill an ogre? It didn't matter. Manage to convince the queen to bankroll your expedition, despite not being able to talk to her? Bonus XP.

[Subaru Kujo]

That has no drawbacks at all, if a certain novel series is any indication. Despite being ridiculously easy to check, nobody ever will, no matter how nasty the consequences.

Sort of depends. With certain DMs that I play with, it'd at the very least cause some very awkward situations for a person to talk their way out of (wait, you want to help protect/serve/whatever the king with that?), if not full on get out of town vibes. That said, yeah, depending on the table it may not even come up.

[Andezzar]

Someone training hard enough for Skill to overcome lack of Natural Talent? Not many but it is an existing subset of note. Since that is realistic, the game world would have to deviate from reality in that precise area for it not to also conform to verisimilitude.I'm not saying such characters can't exist, but enforcing the flaw to penalize a major part of the character concept is silly. If someone wants to play a character that often uses ranged attacks, why would he have to take a penalty to ranged attacks instead of one to melee attacks or something else entirely?

@Rubik: What is the series you are talking about?

[Rubik]

@Rubik: What is the series you are talking about?This one:https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/96/58/31/9658312cda697104ed3002dc5d0a4d64.jpg

[Thanatosia]

I think flaws are a flawed concept.

I do like the extra character customization, but I'm increasingly just leaning towards giving all PCs +1 or +2 feats at lv1 and nerfing flaws to like +1 skillpoint at lv1 or some minor thing like that.

[Rubik]

I think flaws are a flawed concept.So... Something like this?


Flaw
You are more flawed than most. Take another flaw.

You may take this flaw multiple times. Each time you do, you must take another flaw.

[OldTrees1]

I'm not saying such characters can't exist, but enforcing the flaw to penalize a major part of the character concept is silly. If someone wants to play a character that often uses ranged attacks, why would he have to take a penalty to ranged attacks instead of one to melee attacks or something else entirely?

I am not sure what post you were replying to then. The post in question enforced flaws having an real effect, not enforcing the flaw penalize a major part of the character. A ranged warrior that never wields a melee weapon does not merit an extra feat from an undefined penalty. However said ranged warrior would deserve a feat for a penalty on something else (provided that it would/does actually come up). For instance a penalty on speed would come up and is not enforcing the penalty hits a major part of the character.

In summary:
You accept those characters can exist
I explained that the post covered more than just those characters


I think flaws are a flawed concept.

I do like the extra character customization, but I'm increasingly just leaning towards giving all PCs +1 or +2 feats at lv1 and nerfing flaws to like +1 skillpoint at lv1 or some minor thing like that.

Flaws as a high level concept:
Giving the character a mechanical representation of a weakness with a corresponding mechanical benefit to restore balance.

Flaws as a low abstraction level concept:
Giving the character a mechanical representation of a weakness with a corresponding mechanical benefit feat to restore balance.

You agree with the high abstraction level concept but not the low abstraction level concept and you agree with giving extra feats. I am guessing you think mechanically representative weaknesses on the order of what would balanced by feats are inherently too large or something. Would/could you expand on this?

[Judge_Worm]

I figured I try my hand at this.


Blind

You cannot see.

You automatically fail all spot and search checks. Decipher Script checks receive a -8 penalty, and you cannot choose to take 20. You cannot use any effect (including spells, spell-like abilities, or magic items) that requires having a "line of sight" to the target. In addition if you are cured of your blindness or gain the ability to see (except through blindsight) you lose the ability to use the feat(s) gained from this flaw and any feats, prestige classes, or templates that use that feat as a prerequisite.

Deaf and Mute

You are both deaf and mute.

You automatically fail all Listen and Truename checks. You can read lips if the person talking is within 20 feet (4 squares) and facing you by with a Speak Language check (DC 5 if the speaker is the same race as you and natively speaks that language, DC 10 if the speaker is the same race as you but doesn't natively speak that language, DC 15 if the speaker is not the same race as you, and DC 20 if the speaker is talking quickly, +5 DC if the speaker is a monstrous humanoid, humanoid, giant, fey, or outsider of a different type than you, +10 DC if the speaker is not one of those aforementioned types and is a different type than you). You cannot read lips if the speaker does not have a mouth or their mouth is covered. You cannot cast spells with verbal components. You can still learn languages, you cannot however speak them. In addition if you are cured of your deafness or muteness or gain the ability to hear or speak you lose the ability to use the feat(s) gained from this flaw and any feats, prestige classes, or templates that use that feat as a prerequisite.

Lame

You cannot move so well.

You can only move at one half your normal speed. You cannot run or charge. You have an additional 5% spell failure chance on any spell with a somatic component. All swim DCs are doubled for you. All climb and tumble DCs are tripled. You automatically fail all jump checks, and fall prone if you attempt one. You suffer a -3 penalty on all Reflex saves. You are easier to trip (enemies gain a +5 circumstance bonus while attempting to trip you) and lose the benefits of Stability if you have that ability. In addition if you are cured of your lameness or gain another mode of movement (except through the use of a mount, a vehicle, or being carried) you lose the ability to use the feat(s) gained from this flaw and any feats, prestige classes, or templates that use that feat as a prerequisite.

The Worst Flaw

You are extremely unlucky. All your die rolls are treated as natural 1s (including rolling your ability scores).

[The Random NPC]

The Worst Flaw

You are extremely unlucky. All your die rolls are treated as natural 1s (including rolling your ability scores).

I've been wanting to try my hand at making a Luck Feat character.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Ow. Just ow. That is a fairly scary flaw.

Broad spectrum is the way to go. The flaw that punishes Concentration does literally nothing to a non-caster and can be avoided through skillful use of spells/class features even though it looks nasty on the surface.

This flaw, on the other hand, can be partially obviated with spells. Thing is about that though is it is still burning one resource for another and is fairly easy for the DM to try to exploit (especially the partial inability to make skill checks untrained).
Any flaw can be partially obviated with spells. It's what spells do, pretty much. Even so, I'd never take that flaw, even for two feats. I like my skill points. It's probably still a net gain in power, though. If we say that a hypothetical feat that grants 1 skill point per HD exists, you can use one to compensate for the lost skill points, and the second to buy 1 rank in 10-20 skills (depending on CCness), getting rid of all the major penalties to untrained skills. I think there are enough feats that are considered better than 1 skill point per HD (and thus worth it with this flaw), though many more feats that are worse (fighter feats, pretty much). On the other hand, there probably aren't too many feats you'd pick up with this flaw, if it granted only one feat, so that's good.

It's pretty good on a war hulk or something, but then that's war hulks for you. Although it would be pretty hilarious to watch a massize 40' giant unable to jump more than 10' on account of not having a rank in Jump.


Impractical
Prerequisite: Must be a warmage or evoker specialist wizard.
For any die roll you make (which can be multiple dice, as long as they're of the same type, and you're meant to add the result, as for fireball damage), roll twice, using the following procedure: For any die that rolls the maximum possible result, roll again, and add the result to the total. For any die that rolls the minimum possible result, roll again and subtract the result from the total.

When you have the two totals, subtract the lowest result from the highest, and multiply the result by the average value of the dice you rolled (2.5 for a d4, 3.5 for a d6 and so on). That is your die roll result. You may only announce it to the DM through mime (which the players may not see), and you may only announce it to the players through song (which the DM may not hear).

(incidentally, what makes the most rolls?)

(violating Grod's law so badly it crosses the line twice)

[Andezzar]

A character who takes a penalty to melee attacks is flawed, even if he does not intend to use melee attacks. It might come up that he is forced to use them. And that is the case for (nearly) all flaws. I have not seen any character with a flaw that cannot come up.

Sure flaws will result in a net power gain for the character, but that option is open to everyone, so not really a problem.

It makes no sense to deny such characters sensible coping mechanism that would otherwise be available as advocated in Judge_Worm's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20008720&postcount=29).

Let's say player A plays some creature with a base speed of 40 ft and the slow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#slow) flaw and player B plays a dwarf. Why would A's character lose feats and PrC levels when under the effect of the haste or expeditious retreat spell and B's character wouldn't?

[OldTrees1]

A character who takes a penalty to melee attacks is flawed, even if he does not intend to use melee attacks. It might come up that he is forced to use them. And that is the case for (nearly) all flaws. I have not seen any character with a flaw that cannot come up.

Yes, but is that worth a feat? For a ranger? Maybe. For a Wizard? Certainly not in the normal case.

For a more extreme example: Is a -1 penalty to craft basket weaving while on pluto worth an extra feat in an Eberron campaign? No? They you are merely quibbling over price rather than the concept of there being a price.

[ryu]

Yes, but is that worth a feat? For a ranger? Maybe. For a Wizard? Certainly not in the normal case.

For a more extreme example: Is a -1 penalty to craft basket weaving while on pluto worth an extra feat in an Eberron campaign? No? They you are merely quibbling over price rather than the concept of there being a price.

Yes it totally is. The game designers made feats entirely too scarce. People who don't know how to optimize have a high likelihood of screwing themselves over due to lack of planning. People who do know don't really care about this scarcity unless facing similarly competent enemies. You know what else is worth a feat in my eyes? 3000 GP. Even counting as a consumable not a part of wealth by level that you are thus allowed to regain with no long-term penalty in any number of ways.

[Andezzar]

I totally agree with ryu.

[Judge_Worm]

A character who takes a penalty to melee attacks is flawed, even if he does not intend to use melee attacks. It might come up that he is forced to use them. And that is the case for (nearly) all flaws. I have not seen any character with a flaw that cannot come up.

Sure flaws will result in a net power gain for the character, but that option is open to everyone, so not really a problem.

It makes no sense to deny such characters sensible coping mechanism that would otherwise be available as advocated in Judge_Worm's post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20008720&postcount=29).

Let's say player A plays some creature with a base speed of 40 ft and the slow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm#slow) flaw and player B plays a dwarf. Why would A's character lose feats and PrC levels when under the effect of the haste or expeditious retreat spell and B's character wouldn't?

Because the idea was super flaws. I actually juiced up flaws I already use at my table. Blind- as the Blindness spell. Deaf- as the deafness spell. Slow- as written in UA. Unlucky- -1 to all D20 rolls (except natural 20s). The only reason I could see someone taking a Super Flaw is with power gaming in mind, in which case they better be prepared to accept that they aren't going to get around them. Blind can still be gotten around with tremorsense, blindsense, scent, etc, and definitely with blindsight. Deaf and Mute have the advantage of not really needing either hearing or speech that much (mechanically speaking). Lame can be countered by using a mount. And as far as The Worst Flaw is considered, you get what you pay for, although I'd probably treat it as the character having all the feats they qualify for that weren't luck feats.

Also, I was more concerned about outright going around the flaw (such as having Lame and possessing 50 bajillion scrolls of Haste), and didn't think of the more minor get around (like using haste once when you really need it). At any rate, this can be fixed in the errata (that will probably never be made), because to be honest I can't think of phrasing that would exclude the former without also excluding the latter.

[ryu]

I totally agree with ryu.

A lot of people think of ''powergamers'' as people who want to be powerful in game simply for the purpose of dominating a random game. No. A lot of us just want to play without actively taking steps to handicap ourselves. That same group is usually all for comparably powerful/competent allies and enemies. They enjoy complex and challenging fights rather than what they would view as simple and monotonous. I took it a step further and proposed this general framework to give newcomers with even slightly similar inclinations an easy way to learn optimization. We literally play games with that and other similar rules to train new people. The only reason there's any sort of cost for ANYTHING in those games is to stop people from getting paralyzed by choice. We also have people who've played every archetype ready and willing to give tips.

[elonin]

Many games have advantage and disadvantage systems with abilities that are like feats. There are prerequisites of flaws to make sure you are affected by the flaws you take. I like the system used by VtM (merits and flaws) and those could be adapted easily.

[Andezzar]

I like the system used by VtM (merits and flaws) and those could be adapted easily.I like it too (SR4 has something similar). But still those have disadvantages that are more easily circumvented than others even though both give the same amount of extra points.

[Chronos]

If the problem is not enough feats, then just give out more feats. Don't tie them to a poorly-designed system like flaws.

[OldTrees1]

If the problem is not enough feats, then just give out more feats. Don't tie them to a poorly-designed system like flaws.

Correct. So presuming there are enough feats(due to adding more), and a player wanted to get a penalty + benefit package like a flaw + a feat ...

[ryu]

Correct. So presuming there are enough feats(due to adding more), and a player wanted to get a penalty + benefit package like a flaw + a feat ...

Depends. How many feats did you add? Is there even a set number of feats added as opposed to a new system of obtaining them? How often are feats obtained? How hard is it to switch to something else once you realize you've made a poor choice?

If we're running permanent flaws how severe are they? Do we care if people try to minimize personal pain for having taken them? As someone else pointed out a guy who can't melee, and so decided to go ranged just makes sense. It's what a rational actor does.

[Rubik]

There are plenty of ways to grab extra feats later in the game, but early on, options are really limited. Also, sometimes you want to give yourself a huge handicap or major issue you want your character to have to deal with, and flaws (and severe flaws) are one way to compensate you for it, at least partially.

[OldTrees1]

Depends. How many feats did you add? Is there even a set number of feats added as opposed to a new system of obtaining them? How often are feats obtained? How hard is it to switch to something else once you realize you've made a poor choice?

If we're running permanent flaws how severe are they? Do we care if people try to minimize personal pain for having taken them? As someone else pointed out a guy who can't melee, and so decided to go ranged just makes sense. It's what a rational actor does.

Don't fix a broken bridge by building a Ferris wheel. One does not fix insufficient feats with a flaw system and thus a flaw system is not held accountable to how many feats are available. How many feats were added? The right amount in the right way at the right speed in the right clumps.

So presuming there are enough feats(due to adding more), and a player wanted to get a penalty + benefit package like a flaw + a feat ...

[atemu1234]

I think flaws are a flawed concept.

I do like the extra character customization, but I'm increasingly just leaning towards giving all PCs +1 or +2 feats at lv1 and nerfing flaws to like +1 skillpoint at lv1 or some minor thing like that.

I like traits more than flaws, to be honest. They are simpler and often have great roleplaying opportunities. Flaws tend to be hackneyed and often are meaningless to characet concepts.


If the problem is not enough feats, then just give out more feats. Don't tie them to a poorly-designed system like flaws.

I'd say Pathfinder's feat system is a good start, or place to look.

[ryu]

Don't fix a broken bridge by building a Ferris wheel. One does not fix insufficient feats with a flaw system and thus a flaw system is not held accountable to how many feats are available. How many feats were added? The right amount in the right way at the right speed in the right clumps.

So presuming there are enough feats(due to adding more), and a player wanted to get a penalty + benefit package like a flaw + a feat ...

And the latter half of the post? How much do you care about people taking flaws in areas they don't expect to be part of their common use? Things that will only become relevant if the character is out of their element for some reason. I argue that stuff like that just totally makes sense from a purely logical standpoint.

[OldTrees1]

And the latter half of the post? How much do you care about people taking flaws in areas they don't expect to be part of their common use? Things that will only become relevant if the character is out of their element for some reason. I argue that stuff like that just totally makes sense from a purely logical standpoint.

Well, the post you quoted was asking a question instead of stating an answer so I noticed that the latter half of your post was written under a miscommunication. So I did not give it the time of day at the time (as per normal).


However as a simple game design principle, if you want to balance something so that it adds negligible imbalance, it either needs to be universal(not the case since players do not all need to take the same number of flaws) or it needs to have comparable benefits and penalties. So the penalty taken would need to be comparable to the benefit(a feat).

Both the rational actor that powers through a disadvantage and the rational actor that avoids their disadvantage suffer a penalty. However the two disadvantages can differ so drastically to be incomparable (Ex: penalty on critical threat range between a warrior[power through] and a wizard[avoids]).

So a flaw avoided must be more severe than a flaw accepted in proportion with the severity of the avoidance. In some cases the severity of the avoidance is severe enough to render a severe enough flaw impossible (example above might be an example here).

[Nifft]

The Worst Flaw

You can never take a level of a class that grants full spellcasting progression.

Enjoy your two feats.

[Necroticplague]

You can never take a level of a class that grants full spellcasting progression.

Enjoy your two feats.

Kinda redundant with how many martial builds end up with a bunch of bonus feats.

[Nifft]

Kinda redundant with how many martial builds end up with a bunch of bonus feats.

Please remember that the target demographic for martial builds includes a lot of people who make poor choices.