What do you think about Flaws?

[Jon_Dahl]

Even in all the splatbooks, I haven't seen that many flaws. I was thinking about making at least 10 new flaws, even though my players don't really care about them, but before I do that, I'd like to hear what playgrounders think about them.

In my opinion, the basic set of the flaws are a bit too mechanical. When I read them, I got the sense of playing with numbers rather than giving my characters more depth. I'm not really complaining about that, because I think many feats are like that too: giving your character more edge in combat regardless of character's background and goals. It's nothing bad, really. I feel that traits are the best way to put more depth into your character, but flaws are mostly just number crunching and min-maxing. I was thinking that my homebrew flaws would be more like "hardcore traits" that give more feel to one's character. But like I said, I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that I'm not perfectly happy with the basic set of flaws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm).

[Chester]

I agree to some extent. The issue I usually see, however, is that players often choose flaws that really don't matter. Inattentive when you have the skill points to pump back into your spot check? Shaky for a melee combatant?

But yes, I do feel that apart from this, flaws don't add depth. It's number crunching in order to pick up extra feats. This doesn't have to be a bad thing, though, if players really choose flaws that matter as a fair trade.

[Crake]

I agree to some extent. The issue I usually see, however, is that players often choose flaws that really don't matter. Inattentive when you have the skill points to pump back into your spot check? Shaky for a melee combatant?

I see inattentive on people who don't put any investment into spot/listen at all. If people are actually putting skill ranks into it, then it DOES matter. And even melee combatants will need to do ranged attack rolls sometimes.

[HurinTheCursed]

I believe few players will pick flaws that will impact their charracter and even then, the consequences will matter less than the trait (or worse, the feat) than will be picked to balance. In a difficult campaign, extra feats may be nice but that may be too much if the group already already lacks challenge.

Flaws may be interesting if they well roleplayed though. I tend to give extra xp to good interpretation so players begin to care about flaws and if they don't, you could put them in a situation where the flay would come into roleplay.

[Sliver]

While players may pick flaws that effect them the least, characters pick up classes that are best for them. A person with bad aim is unlikely to practice archery, and an inattentive person is unlikely to focus that much on scouting. It makes as much sense optimization wise as it is in-game. Not all concepts are about overcoming your shortcomings. Most people rather focus on what they're good at and nurture that, instead.

[OldTrees1]

Flaws are good design when they enhance the player's experience prior to any feat they may grant. As usual, WotC is bad at filling their systems with content that gives the system a fair showing.


Some decent examples (since the enhancing is subjective, decent is also subjective) can be found scattered in this thread Curses (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?479072-Curses).

Personally I like the "Can't hold anything for more than X minutes without it bursting into flame." I would probably set X=1 if I used it. It would be quite interesting to see my character try to avoid it in combat or walking warily through a dark dungeon. I probably wouldn't keep track of the timer myself so that my character ends up with some uncertainty about how soon it will trigger.

[Piggy Knowles]

I hate them. Character flaws should be flaws, and shouldn't be free feats. If I feel like my players don't have enough feats to be effective or to accomplish what they're trying to do then I'll give them more. I'd rather encourage flaws during building and RP rather than having them pick off a list in hopes of getting a reward.

[ericgrau]

Even in all the splatbooks, I haven't seen that many flaws. I was thinking about making at least 10 new flaws, even though my players don't really care about them, but before I do that, I'd like to hear what playgrounders think about them.

In my opinion, the basic set of the flaws are a bit too mechanical. When I read them, I got the sense of playing with numbers rather than giving my characters more depth. I'm not really complaining about that, because I think many feats are like that too: giving your character more edge in combat regardless of character's background and goals. It's nothing bad, really. I feel that traits are the best way to put more depth into your character, but flaws are mostly just number crunching and min-maxing. I was thinking that my homebrew flaws would be more like "hardcore traits" that give more feel to one's character. But like I said, I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that I'm not perfectly happy with the basic set of flaws (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/characterFlaws.htm).
Basically what you said. The flaws aren't really flaws, they're just free feats you get from trivially min-maxing any drawback. I've had a lot of fun with the White Wolf gaming system flaws that have more meaning, especially in role play.

Even the White Wolf flaws give more benefit than drawback, and likewise have a cap. Which is fine. It basically encourages everyone to get a set number of real drawbacks for their character, but not more.

If you want to make flaws a hard choice where players may decide not to take them then you need to make sure the (1) drawback applies to everyone (but not equally), (2) the amount of drawback is based on the build least affected by it because that's who takes the flaw not the average build and (3) you give explicit rules disallowing the player from entirely eliminating the flaw. For example a basic flaw would give -4 con (low op) or -6 con (high op) and the player loses the benefit if he becomes con - or otherwise eliminates the loss. It works because (1) Everybody wants con, (2) I was harsh and greatly exceeded a typical feat because a back liner is the one who will take this flaw and (3) I prevented eliminating the drawback, in quite general terms to keep players from looking for a loophole. Assuming all other flaws are equally harsh, now somebody can finally play something like Raistlin Majere without everybody saying "Dumping con is dumb". The player is still going to have an ok con before the penalty because he's not dumb, but the flaw brings his con score down low enough to play his concept and get a feat from it.

Roleplay flaws are more fun though. I've had fun with Always Dances When There's Music and Impatient (keeps the game moving in rash ways). Though the White Wolf system had ways to temporarily negate the flaws when it really matters, for example by paying precious willpower points. One I've thought up is Perpetually Lost: Always picks a random direction and even argues and fights for it unless overruled by the majority.

[Eldariel]

I think Flaws as a mechanic serve as a silly bandaid to address the awfully poor default feat acquisition rate of 3.5 (getting a +1 in something every 3 levels isn't exactly enthralling), particularly with the kinds of feat chains many splatbooks give. The default rate is workable but requires extreme specialization and is really unkind to generalists. The extra two feats go a long way towards enabling a couple of different background feats (though from a crunch perspective, most of those aren't worth it), trees or so.

In my own games, I rather just give more feats at no extra cost (a free background feat, a free racial feat, couple of starter feats and a feat on 2/4/6/etc.), working with players to ensure that they can play their concepts and that they don't have to pay full feats for things only worth partial feats (Trophy Hunter, Master of Poisons, etc. - stuff that colors a character but doesn't necessarily grant massive bonuses any which way). I don't think the austerity policy the game normally runs under provides players with sufficient customization tunneling characters too much into dipping for feats and specializing so I make sure to give way more of both, feats and skills than the default system does.

Note, this doesn't change the actual balance of the system all that significantly (such generic changes have a hard time addressing something so profound), but it provides the players with more means to customize their characters to more accurately match their concepts, and makes it easier to be good at multiple things in general. Hyperspecialists are always possible of course and sometimes I have to work with my players to make sure they don't just break things (since the system is easy enough to break), but as long as everyone is generally on the same page on what we want to be doing, it's not that much of a problem.


Then I save flaws as a mechanic for when players want to actually add meaningful flaws to their character. In one game I'm running we have a blind Psion for instance, who got a form of a Blindsense within 30', bonuses to Listen (but inability to roll Spot) and Blind-Fight benefits (not flatfooted vs. unseen attackers, able to roll twice for miss chance; less accurate than seeing people but much more accurate than a normally seeing person deprived of vision). I also treat something like a knight's code of honor as a flaw (not being allowed to take advantage of surprise and things of that nature), and give the characters extra accordingly, depending on what makes sense in the context.

[nyjastul69]

I don't like or use flaws. As mentioned, it's just a bit of min/maxing for an extra feat or two. If I want the players to have more feats I just give them more feats.

[A.A.King]

The problem with flaws isn't just that people will pick a penalty that doesn't affect them (-2 on Ranged attacks when you only intend to be in melee) it is that in general they pick a penalty that makes worse something they probably already couldn't do anyway (-2 on melee attacks for a wizard who already has a strength penalty).

The only time I thought a flaw actually fitted a concept was the flaw 'Shaky' on a Weapon Finesse build. It is still a bit cheap but at least it has some meaning because when you are a high DEX character you would normally be more suited for Archery, but Shaky makes you not that suited for archery. The Penalty still doesn't really affect your general build and it is still very obvious you chose it because you never intended to be in melee, but at least then the flaw can be seen as a flaw in character because it prevented something that otherwise would have been an actual option.

[Morcleon]

I usually enjoy flaws and tend to write them into my character's backstory and/or personality. I do agree that the UA flaws in general are just boring and generic. Realmshelps.net has a lot of really interesting flaws though, and they're great for sparking character ideas too. :smallbiggrin:

[Troacctid]

The problem with flaws isn't just that people will pick a penalty that doesn't affect them (-2 on Ranged attacks when you only intend to be in melee) it is that in general they pick a penalty that makes worse something they probably already couldn't do anyway (-2 on melee attacks for a wizard who already has a strength penalty).
-2 on melee attacks nerfs the Wizard's ability to Polymorph into a hydra and eat faces, or stab people with a Thunderlance, or even just hit with normal touch spells.

-2 on ranged attacks for a melee character is essentially giving up the ability to use a backup weapon, which can easily bite you.

[Sliver]

All the unearthed arcana flaws introduce a rather significant penalty. You would usually take it to something that least bothers you, but it still affects you. Even my DFA with murky-eyed and shaky flaws felt that when we encountered stuff that were resistant to my breath attacks and I had little else to do because of my significant penalties.

Frowning at players taking the less affecting flaws is like frowning at players for taking good feats instead of "fluff" feats.

And the designers were quite aware of what they wanted flaws to do, and they actually did it right.


Metagame Analysis: Creating Flaws
You can create new flaws, but be careful: Flaws can unbalance your game. When creating flaws, keep a few issues in mind:


A flaw must have a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities. Flaws with primarily roleplaying or story effects have unpredictable effects on game balance.
Flaws are generally bigger in magnitude than feats. That's because players always choose flaws that have the least impact on their characters, while taking feats that have the most. For example, while a feat affecting skills grants a +2 bonus on two skills, its counterpart flaw might impose a -4 penalty on two skills.
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.



A lot of the flaws that were introduced in Dragon Magazine have a more limited scope and having a bigger role-playing impact. Does that make them better? Consider Elven Pride of Arms or Stubby Fingers, for example.

[Piggy Knowles]

Again, I just think the idea of feat-for-character-choice is problem. I encourage my players to think about their flaws and shortcomings during character creation and gameplay, and in higher op games I just give them extra feats that aren't tied to what essentially amounts to a roleplaying decision. Making better flaws makes them somewhat more flavorful and less dumb, but still doesn't change the fact that I dislike the core conceit of flaws.

[Quertus]

The existing flaws are very mechanical, in an attempt to balance out mechanical feats.

Shaky is a trap. Put it on someone with no ranged attack? Well, that encourages you to have someone with no ranged attacks, and thus the stories if people dieing to hydras and beholders.

I like the idea of using role-playing flaws as an excuse to give characters something they need. For example, many people complain about a lack of skill points or class skills. So rank the RP flaws, and let the players use the points to buy more skills. X points gets you an extra skill point power level, Y points lets you add a new skill to your class skills, Z points lets you start with Q points of skills as "background".

Although "verbose" would likely not be worth any points, I don't think any amount of skills would be worth my signature wizard having "tactically inept" like he does.

[Inevitability]

I allow one flaw, but that's more because I like the options feats give low-level characters than because I think they're balanced.

I wouldn't mind if someone created some truly deliberating flaws that actually change how you play your character.

[erok0809]

I normally allow up to two flaws in my game, picked from any of the ones on the SRD or from the Dragon Magazine ones. There are a couple I don't like though, like Murky-Eyed, so I do have to approve which ones you take. In terms of picking ones that don't really affect your character, like Shaky on a melee character, I don't mind it as long as you include the flaw in any relevant roleplay; for example, if you have Shaky and someone tries to give you a ranged weapon, you should probably describe your hands shaking and your nervousness about using it, and maybe protest a little bit, or something like that. I don't mind if it makes you stronger mechanically; my games are already pretty high-powered. They normally makes the character a little more interesting, since they gives more roleplay options.

[Bobby Baratheon]

I'm a fan, but only because it balances it out the feat deficiency of most characters, and simultaneously provides roleplaying opportunities. My current character has the flaws Bravado and Vulnerable and the trait Aggressive, all of which have informed how I play him. He's a sorcerer/warlock that is much more foolhardy than he should be, and tends to wade into melee more often than he probably should. I think it works, because it provides mechanical penalties for mechanical benefits (the feats), and helps round out a character. That said, you hardly need to take the trait aggressive to play a hothead, but it's nice to see that you can reflect that mechanically if you so desire.

[Piggy Knowles]

For all the people complaining about feat deficiency: why not just give extra feats to PCs at character creation? Why tie it to the flaw mechanic that in my experience has its effects either get ignored entirely in-game or else leads to clumsy roleplaying where players randomly remember sometimes that they're near-sighted or have the shakes?

I have no qualms with DMs handing out extra feats, I just don't like using the flaw mechanic to do it.

[Amphetryon]

-2 on melee attacks nerfs the Wizard's ability to Polymorph into a hydra and eat faces, or stab people with a Thunderlance, or even just hit with normal touch spells.

-2 on ranged attacks for a melee character is essentially giving up the ability to use a backup weapon, which can easily bite you.

This. IMO, Flaws help inform the rationale as to why a given Character has delved so deeply into a particular niche role. A melee Character becomes an ubercharger, in part, because that Character understands that there is no way that her Javelin would reliably hit, let alone stop, the enemy who is doing his level best to take the Character's entire party down.

[Necroticplague]

I like flaws. They add a little extra color to characters, can sometimes offer unique oppurtunities (Chicken-infested, for example), and encourage party members to specialize. A Dragonfire Adept is quick to spam his breath weapon because he has only slightly better vision than a mole rate. The Gunslinger takes potshots from a distance because he tends to freeze when people get up close and personal. The transmuter spends more time in other forms because his own is crippled and lame.

[Ellowryn]

For all the people complaining about feat deficiency: why not just give extra feats to PCs at character creation? Why tie it to the flaw mechanic that in my experience has its effects either get ignored entirely in-game or else leads to clumsy roleplaying where players randomly remember sometimes that they're near-sighted or have the shakes?

I have no qualms with DMs handing out extra feats, I just don't like using the flaw mechanic to do it.

This is my take. It is generally acknowledged by everyone i play with and quite often on this board that you never have enough feats (Unless you are a high level pure fighter and then you have other issues to worry about), and yes whenever i make a character for a game that allow flaws i try and pick ones that inconvenience the character the least. But flaws themselves tend to range from annoying (-1 penalty to AC) to downright lethal (-3 penalty to will on a wizard) depending on the level.

[Troacctid]

For all the people complaining about feat deficiency: why not just give extra feats to PCs at character creation? Why tie it to the flaw mechanic that in my experience has its effects either get ignored entirely in-game or else leads to clumsy roleplaying where players randomly remember sometimes that they're near-sighted or have the shakes?

Because using flaws makes character creation quicker. If you have enough feats without flaws, you can just call it done and skip flaws. If you need just a couple extra feats and you're agonizing over which ones to delay, that decision is greatly expedited by the ability to say "I'll just take them both." (Choosing flaws tends to be relatively quick.)

If everyone has extra feats for free, you're making extra work for the less optimization-inclined players who were already experiencing decision paralysis just choosing one feat at 1st level. It's better to let them opt into it.

[Piggy Knowles]

I have never in almost a decade and a half of playing and DMing Third Edition seen someone complain about getting a free feat, but perhaps our experience are different.

[Troacctid]

Just because someone's not complaining about something doesn't mean it isn't detracting from their experience, or that it couldn't be improved. In my experience, players tend to prefer gameplay time over character-building time, so I want to streamline character creation where possible. (This is especially the case for new players, who usually aren't interested in doing a ton of research and just want to jump in.)

I have had players decline to take flaws when given the option.

[Âmesang]

If I ever get the chance to play FORGOTTEN REALMS® I've plans of creating a gnome urban ranger "cowboy" armed with a rifle… which would require a flaw to get that one extra feat to pull everything off. My thought was Murky-Eyed simply because he'd eventually overcome the flaw naturally via Improved Precise Shot at 11th level (and Uncanny Accuracy if he reached 21st).

Heck, the big problem in the plan would be re-working Rapid Shot (via breachloading, DRAGON #321) and Manyshot (double/triple/quadruple-barreled rifle? He is a gnome, after all :smalltongue:).

…I've also contemplated giving the Inattentive and Noncombatant flaws to my sorceress character since they honestly match her vain, conceited, self-centered, selfish, prideful personality and her background as a silver-spoon-in-mouth noble. After all, why should she have to raise her hand against her foes? She has others to do that for her. :smallamused: Besides, if there's something going on around her that doesn't involve her, it's not important to notice anyway!

(The subsequent feats planned would be Heighten Spell and either Arcane Mastery or the slightly more flavorful Master of Poisons; her other feats presently being Pureblooded Suel, Eschew Materials, Improved Familiar, Skill Focus [Spellcraft], Spell Focus [abjuration, transmutation], and Enspell Familiar.)

[Psyren]

For all the people complaining about feat deficiency: why not just give extra feats to PCs at character creation? Why tie it to the flaw mechanic that in my experience has its effects either get ignored entirely in-game or else leads to clumsy roleplaying where players randomly remember sometimes that they're near-sighted or have the shakes?

I have no qualms with DMs handing out extra feats, I just don't like using the flaw mechanic to do it.

This. If you want to give them more feats, just do it. The printed flaws are largely rubbish.


-2 on melee attacks nerfs the Wizard's ability to Polymorph into a hydra and eat faces, or stab people with a Thunderlance, or even just hit with normal touch spells.

-2 on ranged attacks for a melee character is essentially giving up the ability to use a backup weapon, which can easily bite you.

The former is easily rendered pointless by not doing those things. Plenty of useful spells besides shapeshifting and melee touch attacks.

The latter is actually relevant, if hyperbolic - if a mere -2 stopped you from using a ranged weapon entirely, then Shaken would be one of the most powerful debuffs in the game. But it does in fact matter, so -2 ranged can be a semi-decent flaw - but it still runs into the same problem as the first one, i.e. that a character who takes it is unlikely to be making ranged attack rolls at all.


Because using flaws makes character creation quicker. If you have enough feats without flaws, you can just call it done and skip flaws. If you need just a couple extra feats and you're agonizing over which ones to delay, that decision is greatly expedited by the ability to say "I'll just take them both." (Choosing flaws tends to be relatively quick.)

If everyone has extra feats for free, you're making extra work for the less optimization-inclined players who were already experiencing decision paralysis just choosing one feat at 1st level. It's better to let them opt into it.

But now you have to track the players who opted in vs. the ones who didn't when you're auditing their sheets later. That's more bookkeeping, not less.

My solution would be to just give the newer players straightforward feats like Toughness, Endurance, Skill/Weapon Focus or even Run. Quick and easy to remember, and no paralysis on their part.

[LTwerewolf]

One of the big issues is that a lot of character concepts are feat intensive and you don't really get to play *your* character concept until level 9-12. That's not really as fun as being able to play that same concept at 3-6, and being that concept. I allow flaws based on backstory, and if no flaws fit someone's backstory, I'll make a few for them to choose from which takes about 4 seconds.

[Troacctid]

But now you have to track the players who opted in vs. the ones who didn't when you're auditing their sheets later. That's more bookkeeping, not less.

I mean, it's written on the sheet right next to the feat, so, not really.

[Psyren]

I mean, it's written on the sheet right next to the feat, so, not really.

So how is that less complicated than just treating everyone the same with no "opt-in?" That way I don't have to be looking for explanatory text on some sheets vs. others.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm with Psyren; if you just want to give out a few extra feats, just do it. Adding in a couple of minor penalties that are going to be situational enough for the character that they may well be forgotten entirely doesn't really add anything to the game and there's nothing at all to stop the player from playing his characters as flawed people without the mechanic. I don't use them and never have.

[Telonius]

My problem with Flaws is that they're almost inherently built for min-maxing. Not that only munchkins try to use them; but that even if you weren't actively trying to become more powerful, most selections would make you more powerful. Not all feats are created equal, and more than half of the ones the Flaws are mirroring are considered junk.

Consider: Alertness (Inattentive), Great Fortitude (Meager Fortitude), Weapon Focus: Melee (Noncombatant), Lightning Reflexes (Poor Reflexes), Weapon Focus: Ranged (Shaky), Armor Optimization (Vulnerable), and Iron Will (Weak Will) are generally considered sub-optimal feats. They don't give much of a numerical bonus. Given the choice between Weapon Focus and pretty much any other Feat you could take, you'd almost always take the other Feat. You'd probably still take the other Feat even if you increased the numbers by one or two.

Improved Toughness (Frail), Blind-Fight (Murky-Eyed), or Improved Initiative (Unreactive)? Those three are halfway decent, but usually more like add-ons if you find room for them, than feats to work a whole build around.

Feeble, Pathetic, and Slow - if they were reversed and changed into feats - might actually be pretty popular. Their penalties are big enough to hurt.

So, of those 13 flaws, 7 of them almost automatically give you something better than you're losing. Three could do so if you pick right. Three probably won't.

[Troacctid]

So how is that less complicated than just treating everyone the same with no "opt-in?" That way I don't have to be looking for explanatory text on some sheets vs. others.

It's not complicated for me, it's complicated for them. They have extra decisions to make at level 1. More stuff to choose, character creation takes longer.

There's no looking for explanatory text. Flaws are listed with feats on the character sheet.

[OldTrees1]

1) "PCs need more feats, flaws give feats, therefore allow flaws"
As others have pointed out, you can give PCs more feats without allowing flaws.
2) "Flaws give feats, you can just give feats, therefore forget flaws"
Just because you can give feats without flaws, does not detract from flaws, it merely removes the argument based in PCs having too few feats.

3) "Example Flaws from WotC are weak/easily made moot" vs "I disagree, these specific example flaws are significant"
Why make judgements about a system based on the few bad examples? That is reasonable for making judgements about the author, but to judge a system you need to look at the system.


I want to describe a scenario for you: Imagine none of those example flaws existed. Imagine all PCs had the right number of feats for their level. Temporarily even forget that flaws give feats. Now with all those trivial details swept aside, I have an interesting idea for a character. The character's strengths are easily mechanically represented through various mechanics like race/class/feats/skills, however what about the mechanical representation of the engaging weaknesses of this interesting character? Some can be easily added merely with word choice while roleplaying and the corresponding mechanical reactions of NPCs. But can all interesting weaknesses be mechanically represented through the mechanical consequences of specific Roleplaying? I would say not, but even if yes a direct mechanical representation can be much easier. Say we add mechanics for interesting/engaging character weaknesses, in order to be at level appropriate amounts of power (to make it easier on the DM) it makes sense to throw in an adjusting positive effect too right (you can stop temporarily forgetting that flaws give feats now)?

That is the strength of the flaw system in spite of WotC's making terrible examples. If I want to play a contributing but cursed warrior? Write up the curse as a flaw and add a feat for rebalancing. I want to play an occasionally possessed mage? Add a flaw that occasionally makes the DM control of my character, and add a feat for rebalancing. The important part of these examples is not the added feat, but rather it is the flaw that the player found engaging and wanted to have mechanical representation for.

But, you say, what if a feat would be either too strong or too weak to rebalance the weakness I find interesting enough to want? Have you considered designing a trait or a traits + a flaw instead?

[Psyren]

It's not complicated for me, it's complicated for them. They have extra decisions to make at level 1. More stuff to choose, character creation takes longer.

Oh no, more choice, how terrible.

If you're really dealing with a tyro that would be paralyzed by this, do as I stated earlier and pick a generic free feat for them to keep them abreast of the folks who know what they're doing.

[Deadline]

I dislike mechanics-based flaws. I've never seen them utilized well, and generally just allow more feats if that's a thing I want in the game.

I do like when players write RP-based flaws into their backgrounds, but they don't get a mechanical benefit for it. They do get an enhanced roleplay experience out of the deal. It's even better when they write their own villains into their backstory. Most of the time, I structure the campaign based almost entirely on character backstories anyway, to further player involvement and buy-in.

However, if we're just doing a hack'n'slash dungeon crawl, all that I ask is a character name, description, and motivation. We roll from there. And even then, I don't like using flaws, I'll just give them two bonus feats, or allow the Pathfinder feat progression, or we can just make do with what we've got.

[OttoVonBigby]

As DM, I like (most of) the UA/Dragon Mag flaws, but (A) my group is moderate on the optimization, and if my group changed enough, so might my opinion; (B) I allow only one flaw every five levels; and (C) I've augmented the list with some homebrewed flaws. One I like is Motion Sickness, which causes either the sickened or nauseated condition (I forget which; probably the weaker one) during, and for a period after, travel on a horse or vehicle.

I also like this thread because it's already given me two cool new flaw ideas :smallbiggrin:

[Troacctid]

Oh no, more choice, how terrible.

If you're really dealing with a tyro that would be paralyzed by this, do as I stated earlier and pick a generic free feat for them to keep them abreast of the folks who know what they're doing.

Or, instead of doing that, I could offer the option to take flaws. That would also work.

[Psyren]

Or, instead of doing that, I could offer the option to take flaws. That would also work.

And now some people have more feats than others, and by the way the ones who opted in likely picked flaws that don't impact their character (the premise of this thread) so now they have an advantage over the others, and you're keeping track of why player X has more feats than player Y...

[Elder_Basilisk]

I've never been a fan of flaw systems in any game.

1. Flaw systems are inherently invitations to min/max. Previous posters have pointed this out with examples from WOTC flaws but [i]any[/] flaw system is going to have similar problems. Pick a flaw that only minimally effects you, just like you pick feats that benefit you. Now, this is not necessarily a problem--nobody worth listening to complains that fighters don't take spell focus after all. However:

2. It tends to lead to even more hyperspecialization. Let's use the example WotC flaws (which I don't think are especially bad as far as flaws go--the problem is inherent in the concept). Now imagine you have a wizard who was going to specialize in conjurations and battlefield control. He can take a flaw that gives him -2 to hit in order to be slightly better at his specialization. If he didn't have the flaw, he might take polymorph and enervation to give him a couple options for when his primary plans were not going to work. But since he has the flaw, he thinks that won't work for him and doubles down on being even better at his summoning. The end result is that he is less well prepared for situations that exploit his weakness and even better prepared for situations that don't. As a DM or an adventure writer, that makes it harder to hit the sweet spot between cakewalk and likely TPK because you have to amp up the numbers when you are not exploiting weaknesses (the cakewalk horn of the dilemma--but with a bit of the likely TPK thrown in too because amping up the numbers in response to optimization tends to lead to even more rocket tag) but if you do exploit weaknesses, they are that much more vulnerable (the likely TPK horn of the dilemma)

3. Flaws tend to lead to repetitive and boring characters. Inevitably, there are going to be a small subset of flaws that do not effect each character type. Maybe your uberchargers should take nearsighted and your wizards don't suffer much from shaky hands. Maybe it's something else, but there is going to be a small subset of flaws that each character type can mitigate easily. In low optimization games, maybe people won't notice those and you'll end up with lots of crippled characters--fighters who can't hold their weapons more than two rounds and garbage like that. (That in itself is a problem). However in most games, you will find that all of the characters select their flaws from that small list that won't effect their character much. One nearsighted barbarian is interesting. When every barbarian is nearsighted and every wizard is "verbose," it just gets boring and annoying.

4. Flaws also tend to encourage a system where every party is a collection of cripples and neurotics (the more so, the more flaws you can take). Now, this in itself is not necessarily a problem--Call of Cthulu and Mordheim/WFRP games both end up there--but having it happen before play rather than be the result of play means that the most interesting story and roleplaying aspects (how it happened and how the characters learned to deal with them) are in mechanical backstory rather than played out at the table. It also offends my sense of story. In most histories and fantasies, parties may have one or two individuals with flaws or neuroses but all of the characters don't have them. In Lord of the Rings, the fellowship as a group are among the best Middle Earth has to offer (notwithstanding the excess of hobbits). In 1 and 2 Samuel, the list of David's mighty men is a list of warriors who are all awesome (each in his own way), not a list of cripples and war-wounds. In Beowulf or the saga of Hrolf Kraki, you also see collections of heroes who are skilled and courageous. They are unique for their deeds and their abilities, not for their flaws. (Even Fjoki Houndfoot and Elk-Fjokis' monstrous deformities are not really flaws). If you read through Bernal Diaz's account of the conquest of Mexico, there are plenty of character flaws on display, but none of them would be captured in the flaw system. (You also come across a lot of things that message boards traditionally describe as unrealistic artifacts of D&D--things like, "I took seven arrow wounds in a few seconds and had to retreat", or "Oli was stabbed several dozen times and everyone left him under the table, assuming he was dead, but he was so tough, he managed to crawl outside and yell to his troops, but they sided with Cortez's men and in the morning, they beheaded Oli.") In Saving Private Ryan, the squad is not a collection of flaws either. In Aliens, Hudson may be prone to panic and despair and the lieutenant is green but those aren't mechanical flaws and most of the characters don't have even those flaws. There may be a few nearsighted Navy Seals, but I expect that they are the exception, not the rule. Using a flaw system means that your adventuring group won't look like any of those literary or historical groups of heroes or elite warriors. I'd rather my adventuring parties did look like them.

[Troacctid]

And now some people have more feats than others, and by the way the ones who opted in likely picked flaws that don't impact their character (the premise of this thread) so now they have an advantage over the others
You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm perfectly happy to reward specialization and system mastery.

[OldTrees1]

I've never been a fan of flaw systems in any game.

1. Flaw systems are inherently invitations to min/max. Previous posters have pointed this out with examples from WOTC flaws but [i]any[/] flaw system is going to have similar problems. Pick a flaw that only minimally effects you, just like you pick feats that benefit you. Now, this is not necessarily a problem--nobody worth listening to complains that fighters don't take spell focus after all. However:

2. It tends to lead to even more hyperspecialization.
3. Flaws tend to lead to repetitive and boring characters.
4. Flaws also tend to encourage a system where every party is a collection of cripples and neurotics.

This is only 1 complaint (Flaw systems can be minmaxed and the consequences of that minmaxing) and even then it focuses on those that use flaws as a means to an end rather than being interested in flaws for themselves. Humor me for a moment and consider if #2,#3, and #4 apply to people seeking mechanical representation for engaging weaknesses.

#2: Adding interesting weaknesses can mildly tend towards hyperspecialization. But since it is adding engagement in a previous weak spot, one could also consider it to be less specializing.
#3: Yeah, no. The people that seek mechanical representation for weaknesses tend to create diverse and interesting characters.
#4: Not all flawed characters are cripples and neurotics although those are examples of characters with many/severe weaknesses. However you also mentioned something else. You considered the origin of the interesting weaknesses to be a more interesting story than the story of having the interesting weaknesses. Personally I disagree but I recognize it is a matter of preference.

So while I agree that flaws used as a means to an optimizing end are bad design (and WotC's bad example flaws are bad example flaws), I consider the mechanical representation of engaging strengths and weaknesses to be good design for a rules heavy RPG like D&D.

[Psyren]

You say that like it's a bad thing. I'm perfectly happy to reward specialization and system mastery.

They're already being rewarded, by having extra feats to enable their advanced concepts that much sooner. What you're instead doing is punishing every player dumb enough not to opt in simply because they're less confident.

[Troacctid]

They're already being rewarded, by having extra feats to enable their advanced concepts that much sooner.
Extra feats would be the reward, yes. That's, like, the point.


What you're instead doing is punishing every player dumb enough not to opt in simply because they're less confident.
I don't see it. This seems like it's pretty clearly a carrot, not a stick.

[Piggy Knowles]

It's a carrot that's disguised as a stick, so that already good players will know to take it, thus increasing any potential gap with less rules-savvy players, while newer and less confident players will be worried about the drawbacks and possibly pass on it.

[Troacctid]

A carrot means you get a happy outcome for doing the thing. A stick means you get an unhappy outcome for not doing the thing.

A bonus feat is a carrot that you get for taking a flaw. There's no stick in this scenario—I'm not taking away anything you already have.

[Psyren]

Nominally, no, you're not taking anything away. But the end result is more goodies for the experienced players and fewer for the less experienced, so it's still not equitable.

If the flaws were actually truly detrimental rather than largely trivial, it might be even. In practice, with the printed ones, it's not.

[Bobby Baratheon]

Do people not tell new players about flaws in campaigns where they are permissible? :smallconfused: Every game I've ever been in that used flaws, they were pretty clearly explained to the newbies. Are there actual games where the DM greenlights flaws, the munchkin starts to snicker, and no one says anything to the newbie? That's not been my experience, but perhaps my groups have been more noob friendly than normal.

In my current campaign (which I am DMing, and have a DMPC because we're a small group), we use flaws and an accelerated feat accumulation (1st/2nd/4th/6th and so on), and only one player has really gone all out with the optimization (which I encouraged), because he's a bard and him being powerful only enhances everyone else's effectiveness without them really noticing. The other two are noobs, with one playing a Duskblade and the other playing a custom melee class. The extra feats help them stay relevant power-wise, while the flaws provided an option to round out their character. It's been my experience that noobs struggle to define their character outside of "me in a fantasy world", and giving them the option to select a couple of flaws helps flesh out their character. As I noted earlier, picking the flaws Vulnerable and Bravado helped me establish my character's M.O. and it's helped the other players as well. One particularly good example is the custom melee guy, who took Inattentive and has played his character as a ditzy German strudel baker who also happens to be a hulking mass of melee death.

I guess my larger point is that even outside of the feat deficiency argument (which I still think is at least somewhat valid, as many DM's won't just give out extra feats and find flaws an acceptable compromise), it gives a way to flesh out your character and represent that mechanically. I think that's great, despite the fact that the standard flaws are absurdly unbalanced (hmmm - murky eyed vs a -6 to initiative? I wonder which I'll take!). It's hardly that difficult to make better flaws.

[Troacctid]

Nominally, no, you're not taking anything away. But the end result is more goodies for the experienced players and fewer for the less experienced, so it's still not equitable.
Of course the end result is that the people who got rewarded are ahead relative to the people who didn't. Because they got rewarded. That's what a reward is.

If you're going to tell me that any reward is also a punishment for the people who don't get it, okay, fine, but then we're not drawing any meaningful distinction between the two terms at all, so why should anyone care?

[Elder_Basilisk]

#2: Adding interesting weaknesses can mildly tend towards hyperspecialization. But since it is adding engagement in a previous weak spot, one could also consider it to be less specializing.

So, adding -2 to hit in situations you will go out of your way to avoid in return for being better at the situations you encounter all the time adds "engagement" to a weak spot? Pull the other one, it has bells on it.


#3: Yeah, no. The people that seek mechanical representation for weaknesses tend to create diverse and interesting characters.

Flaw systems are not about seeking mechanical representation for weaknesses. They are about accepting mechanical representations of weaknesses in return for mechanical benefits like extra feats or extra traits. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.

A. I've not noticed any correlation between people who beg to take mechanical weaknesses on their character in return for benefits and people who create "diverse and interesting characters."
B. One "verbose" wizard or "one-handed" swashbuckler or "nearsighted" barbarian is diverse and interesting. But there are a lot of D&D players and groups out there, so after the fifth person creates his diverse and interesting nearsighted barbarian, it is neither diverse nor interesting. Seriously. Any given set of flaws will only have a limited amount and there will be a very limited number of those flaws that can be minimized in any particular concept. Concept/flaw combinations will become traditional and rote very quickly. In fact, I think that some of the handbooks on these boards even mention a few of them.


#4: Not all flawed characters are cripples and neurotics although those are examples of characters with many/severe weaknesses. However you also mentioned something else. You considered the origin of the interesting weaknesses to be a more interesting story than the story of having the interesting weaknesses. Personally I disagree but I recognize it is a matter of preference.

Flaw systems tend to encourage characters with many and severe weaknesses. That's why flaw systems typically have a limit to how many flaws you can take and some of them even have mechanical ratings for how bad the flaw is and how many perks/whatever you get to take in return for it.

Since most RPGs reward specialization, and taking the maximum number of maximum severity flaws in order to gain the maximum number of maximally beneficial characteristics is usually required in order to obtain maximum optimization in any particular specialty, players who do not select the maximum and maximum severity flaws (which don't impact their specialty of course--they're optimizers not idiots) will be behind the curve. That is why flaw systems tend to create the cripples and neurotics I mentioned: because they generally encourage taking the maximum number and (if the system measures severity) maximum severity of flaws permitted.

As to the question of origin of flaws vs having them be a part of character creation, I suppose it is to some degree a matter of taste, however I will point out that:

A. Flaws which arise as a result of play typically do not have mechanical benefits attached to them and can be mitigated without penalty. Most flaw systems I have seen (sensibly) stipulate that if a character removes the flaw, they also lose the benefit. Thus, in old-school D&D, a character might lose an arm (to a sword of sharpness or a silly bolt-on third party critical hit system). That is a penalty that may or may not effect the character too much (a one-armed archer is crippled, a guy with a sword and shield can't use the shield anymore, and a wizard may just have to drop his dagger to cast a spell). But they can learn to overcome it somewhat and when they get a regenerate spell cast on them, they can fix it and move on. (Or if they find the arm of Nyr or the hand of Vecna). On the character who traded the one-armed penalty for a +2 dodge bonus to armor class when wielding a one-handed finessable weapon might throw away the arm of nyr or not ask for the regenerate spell in order to keep the dodge bonus. Ditto with the sci-fi ubercharger who could eliminate near-sighted by getting eye surgery. Flaw systems with mechanical benefits tied to them can actually prevent characters from overcoming or eliminating the flaws that they supposedly want to overcome.

B. Flaws which arise through play have a pre-built and shared story behind them; flaws which originate in backstory do not. If a character lost his arm to a sword of sharpness, when the player says, "remember when" the other players who were there can remember and can even correct him if he misremembers the details--"no, you didn't beat him to death with your arm--you were bleeding on the floor; the wizard turned him to stone then turned the stone to mud." If your character is one-armed because of character creation, your "remember when" is just a segue to referencing five pages of poorly written fanfic disguised as character background--it's likely that even the DM only skimmed them.


So while I agree that flaws used as a means to an optimizing end are bad design (and WotC's bad example flaws are bad example flaws), I consider the mechanical representation of engaging strengths and weaknesses to be good design for a rules heavy RPG like D&D.

If you have a weak stat, that's all the mechanical representation for engaging weaknesses I need. Flaw systems that come with bonuses attached (pretty much all of them) have never been positive factors in any RPG I've had any experience with.

Have a voluntary flaw system that does not grant extra feats, traits, or bonuses, and I might give you some of the argument, but very few people would take flaws in that situation.

[Psyren]

Of course the end result is that the people who got rewarded are ahead relative to the people who didn't. Because they got rewarded. That's what a reward is.

If you're going to tell me that any reward is also a punishment for the people who don't get it, okay, fine, but then we're not drawing any meaningful distinction between the two terms at all, so why should anyone care?

It's a punishment if the reason they don't get it is through no fault of their own. An inexperienced player, by definition, is not actually making an informed choice to forego free feats under your system - they're instead doing it out of "paralysis by analysis" as you mentioned above. That to me is not a good reason to deny them any kind of benefit at all, and just increases what would already be a noticeable disparity between them and the more experienced players.

Imbalance is not inherently bad, but reinforcing it for no reason serves no purpose, and to me is actively detrimental.

[OldTrees1]

So, adding -2 to hit in situations you will go out of your way to avoid in return for being better at the situations you encounter all the time adds "engagement" to a weak spot?Pull the other one, it has bells on it.
Nice strawman you have there, please throw it in the trash.

I said engaging/interesting weaknesses. If, like me, you don't consider an attack penalty to be interesting then obviously that was not what I was talking about. Right? 2 examples I listed in this thread that I personally (engagement is subjective) found engaging were the "curse of spontaneous combustion of items held for X minutes" and the "Occasionally possessed: The DM will occasionally control my character (antagonism of possession being implied)". You might find a different kind of character flaw interesting (I presume you don't stick to flawlessly perfect characters). Perhaps the kinds of flaws that intrigue you are best represented through word choice rather than mechanical flaws. But the point stands that some do find engaging flaws to be engaging.



Flaw systems are not about seeking mechanical representation for weaknesses. They are about accepting mechanical representations of weaknesses in return for mechanical benefits like extra feats or extra traits. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.
You sure like stressing the mechanical benefits rather than the concept of mechanical representations of engaging weaknesses. We both know that flaw systems intentionally focused on a bonus at the cost of flaws are bad design. So why not start talking about ones focused on an interesting weakness with the cost of a rebalancing factor?


Now that the snarking back and forth has occurred, can we cut to the mature discussion where we
1)Recognize the complexities of game design
2)Realize that people can be engaged/bored by strengths and weaknesses alike
3)Acknowledge that characters need to meet level appropriate strength to face level appropriate challenges
4)That tying positives to negatives can incentivise minmaxing regardless of the intended purpose of the negatives (hey, you made a good point and I started off my last post by directly acknowledging it)


So Y/N, do you want to have the mature discussion about game design? Or should I just drop it?


RE:Flaws picked up during play
I believe the preference divide here is that you mostly focused on the source/origin while I focused on the handling/dealing/coping part of the story. While our preferences differ on this, I do recognize that you are right about the richness and value of such stories.

[Troacctid]

It's a punishment if the reason they don't get it is through no fault of their own. An inexperienced player, by definition, is not actually making an informed choice to forego free feats under your system - they're instead doing it out of "paralysis by analysis" as you mentioned above. That to me is not a good reason to deny them any kind of benefit at all, and just increases what would already be a noticeable disparity between them and the more experienced players.
Some game mechanics are more powerful in the hands of more skilled players. That's fine. Part of being skilled is noticing things that less skilled players don't. Lenticular design, etc.


Imbalance is not inherently bad, but reinforcing it for no reason serves no purpose, and to me is actively detrimental.
Okay, but it's not for no reason. It's there to offer players access to extra feats if they want them, without just handing them out for free.

[Piggy Knowles]

Some game mechanics are more powerful in the hands of more skilled players. That's fine. Part of being skilled is noticing things that less skilled players don't. Lenticular design, etc.


Okay, but it's not for no reason. It's there to offer players access to extra feats if they want them, without just handing them out for free.

Why not suggest that players can choose up to three feats at first level (four if human), and let newer players know that because they are less familiar with the game, they can instead choose their "extra" feats later when they have a better idea of what they want their PC to do mechanically? That seems like it would benefit both types of players without causing newer players to feel shorted when they realize later that not taking a flaw at chargen was in fact limiting their options.

[Psyren]

Some game mechanics are more powerful in the hands of more skilled players. That's fine. Part of being skilled is noticing things that less skilled players don't. Lenticular design, etc.

Sure, but why exacerbate the problem by giving them nothing, as opposed to free Toughness or Weapon/Skill Focus or something very simple like that? It's an easy lift for you, and may even save their life or let them save the day in a cinematic moment that they'll remember throughout their gaming career. In the annals of D&D history, I'm sure Toughness has saved at least a few characters from an untimely defeat.



Okay, but it's not for no reason. It's there to offer players access to extra feats if they want them, without just handing them out for free.

And the experienced players will always want them, while the inexperienced ones will often make a poor choice through no fault of their own.

As an aside, that in itself is a good way to measure whether a mechanic is designed well. In all my years here, I've never seen a player say "SRD flaws are allowed but I chose not to take any." Universally, they opt for the flaws, because the penalties they bestow are trivial compared to the benefit. There is no meaningful tradeoff there, which is why I consider them bad design.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Nice strawman you have there, please throw it in the trash.

I said engaging/interesting weaknesses. If, like me, you don't consider an attack penalty to be interesting then obviously that was not what I was talking about. Right? 2 examples I listed in this thread that I personally (engagement is subjective) found engaging were the "curse of spontaneous combustion of items held for X minutes" and the "Occasionally possessed: The DM will occasionally control my character (antagonism of possession being implied)". You might find a different kind of character flaw interesting (I presume you don't stick to flawlessly perfect characters). Perhaps the kinds of flaws that intrigue you are best represented through word choice rather than mechanical flaws. But the point stands that some do find engaging flaws to be engaging.

If you are talking about a flaw system that is not connected to mechanical benefits then there is more potential, but it's not clear how the kind of flaws you are talking about (which are dramatic and supernatural) add engagement to a characters' weaknesses. The two examples you cite add potentially engaging weaknesses but they do not really add engagement on to existing weaknesses. They are also too significant and dramatic to be models for a full flaw system. A party of five characters who have things burst into flame whenever they hold them for a minute or who are all occasionally possessed or (more likely) who have similarly significant but different flaws will result in them either being ignored in gameplay or the DM being unable to get much actual story done because of all the time and attention that needs to be focused on the character flaws.

A flaw like nearsightedness or -2 to melee attack rolls can be nearly irrelevant based on character design but they do have the benefit of not being time and attention hogs. You just apply the appropriate penalty in the unfortunate event that you are forced to make the attack roll and then you move on.


You sure like stressing the mechanical benefits rather than the concept of mechanical representations of engaging weaknesses. We both know that flaw systems intentionally focused on a bonus at the cost of flaws are bad design. So why not start talking about ones focused on an interesting weakness with the cost of a rebalancing factor?

What kind of rebalancing factor are we talking about? I've seen threads (possibly on the Paizo or WotC boards) where people want to play a blind swordsman and seem to think that should give them blindsight for free. One man's rebalancing factor seems a lot like another man's bonus. Or am I misreading this?

If the benefit is directly tied to the drawback (like an Oracle's curse) that is probably better game design than just granting a free-floating bonus to rebalance the character, but it is more work to create and therefore more likely to get repetitive. I'm not entirely sure that offering any kind of mitigation is a good idea.



Now that the snarking back and forth has occurred, can we cut to the mature discussion where we
1)Recognize the complexities of game design
2)Realize that people can be engaged/bored by strengths and weaknesses alike
3)Acknowledge that characters need to meet level appropriate strength to face level appropriate challenges
4)That tying positives to negatives can incentivise minmaxing regardless of the intended purpose of the negatives (hey, you made a good point and I started off my last post by directly acknowledging it)

So Y/N, do you want to have the mature discussion about game design? Or should I just drop it?

So what exactly does go into your hypothetical helpful flaw system?
Does it have benefits attached or just penalties?
Is it optional (pick a flaw if you want one) or required (everyone must take at least two points worth of flaws)?
Are the flaws physical/mechanical, psychological, supernatural, or a mixture of the three?

For my part, I think that optional, no benefits/just penalties is probably the best way to go about it. If someone told me at character creation that they wanted to play a guy with one eye and take a -2 penalty to ranged attacks, I'd be fine with that--but there wouldn't be a bonus feat or trait attached to it. If they wanted to play a guy with a curse--probably fine too but I wouldn't want it to interfere with gameplay too much. If they want to play a character with some kind of a psychological problem--that's fine too but it can't be something that is going to make the character disruptive ("I have a phobia of birds" is ok, "I'm a serial killer" or "I'm a kleptomaniac who always has to steal something from everyone she encounters" not so much).

From a design standpoint, the challenge is that, if they are optional, these kind of traits will probably be ignored by everyone. (Which is fine by me--my attitude towards such a system is generally at best, "it's there if a player really wants it"). If they are required, then most people will either pick one that doesn't matter (the enchanter wizard who takes a -2 penalty on ranged attacks--which he never makes), or you risk a party with all sorts of attention-seeking, game disrupting curses that make it impossible to actually focus on the adventure.

On the other hand, it may well depend upon the game and game system. If you are playing a generic D&D game, then you probably don't need any flaws. If you are playing a game set in a brutal prison planet like in Riddick or one of the Stargate SG-1 Goauld mines, then maybe everyone needs to be maimed somehow. If you are playing in Gamma World, maybe everyone needs a deformity.

EDIT. Maybe to emphasize a grittier D&D world, you could use something for starting at higher than level 1. Roll once or twice on the Mordheim injury table and take the results. Characters who start at first level get their injuries the old fashioned way. New non lvl 1 characters have some drawbacks to show that they've been around the block a few times.


RE:Flaws picked up during play
I believe the preference divide here is that you mostly focused on the source/origin while I focused on the handling/dealing/coping part of the story. While our preferences differ on this, I do recognize that you are right about the richness and value of such stories.

Thank you. The other issue I have with flaw systems is that they tend to lock characters into the flaws. The one-handed swashbuckler could, at the appropriate level, get a regeneration spell. The impetuous barbarian could learn to look before he leaps into spiked shark-infested pit traps. If the Verbose wizard is annoying everyone, he could discover that no one cares about the third principle of transmogrification, so he should cut to the bottom line then shut up. But most flaw systems go out of their way to make them permanent. That seems to preclude overcoming a lot of flaws that should be overcomeable in the game system. (In Call of Cthulu, it's a bit different--in that case, your SAN and psychoses are a kind of hit points that measure the damage you take until you finally become unplayable).

[Troacctid]

Why not suggest that players can choose up to three feats at first level (four if human), and let newer players know that because they are less familiar with the game, they can instead choose their "extra" feats later when they have a better idea of what they want their PC to do mechanically? That seems like it would benefit both types of players without causing newer players to feel shorted when they realize later that not taking a flaw at chargen was in fact limiting their options.
You can already do that with flaws.

After 1st level, a character cannot take on additional flaws unless the game master specifically allows it (for examples of times when doing this might be appropriate, see Character Traits).

If the game master allows it, players may add traits to their characters after 1st level. The game master might allow a player to assign a trait to her character after she has roleplayed the character in a manner consistent with the trait in question, or after a traumatic or life changing experience (after dying, a character might develop the Cautious trait or the Aggressive trait). If the game master includes this option, a character should gain a new trait no more frequently than once every five levels.
A more generous option isn't automatically better. If it were, every game would be gestalt with a free level adjustment.


Sure, but why exacerbate the problem by giving them nothing, as opposed to free Toughness or Weapon/Skill Focus or something very simple like that? It's an easy lift for you, and may even save their life or let them save the day in a cinematic moment that they'll remember throughout their gaming career. In the annals of D&D history, I'm sure Toughness has saved at least a few characters from an untimely defeat.
Or, alternately, why not simply give players the choice of whether to take flaws or not?

I'm not going to force anyone to make the optimal decisions. You can choose half-elf or sea-kin or jungle gnome as your race. You can pick the Chaos and Healing domains for your cleric. You can play a wizard and not specialize. I'm happy to offer my advice if a player wants it, and I'll usually point out strictly better options when relevant ("Have you considered Knowledge Devotion instead of Weapon Focus?"), and I usually grimace and ask "Are you sure?" if I see something particularly egregious, but ultimately, I don't need to be micromanaging this stuff. Not interested in flaws? Fine, you don't have to take them. You can always change your mind later.


And the experienced players will always want them, while the inexperienced ones will often make a poor choice through no fault of their own.

As an aside, that in itself is a good way to measure whether a mechanic is designed well. In all my years here, I've never seen a player say "SRD flaws are allowed but I chose not to take any." Universally, they opt for the flaws, because the penalties they bestow are trivial compared to the benefit. There is no meaningful tradeoff there, which is why I consider them bad design.
I've seen players choose not to take flaws when they were allowed, or choose to take only one flaw when allowed two. It's always the more casual players, the ones who aren't interested in min-maxing. (Also the sort of player that's unlikely to hang around D&D message boards--so your sample is probably somewhat skewed.)

[Piggy Knowles]

And the experienced players will always want them, while the inexperienced ones will often make a poor choice through no fault of their own.

As an aside, that in itself is a good way to measure whether a mechanic is designed well. In all my years here, I've never seen a player say "SRD flaws are allowed but I chose not to take any." Universally, they opt for the flaws, because the penalties they bestow are trivial compared to the benefit. There is no meaningful tradeoff there, which is why I consider them bad design.


I've seen players choose not to take flaws when they were allowed, or choose to take only one flaw when allowed two. It's always the more casual players, the ones who aren't interested in min-maxing. (Also the sort of player that's unlikely to hang around D&D message boards--so your sample is probably somewhat skewed.)

I think that is literally the point Psyren was making - that among players with even a passing familiarity with optimization, taking a flaw is pretty much ALWAYS going to be considered better than not taking a flaw.

As for "but you can already do that with flaws" - yes, I can, but as has been brought up multiple times, I think flaws are poorly designed and don't actually lead to anything resembling better roleplaying (if anything, I find they lead to sloppier roleplaying). Your point was that you like being able to offer more experienced players more feats so that they can have a better gaming experience. I'm just saying that you don't need flaws (which, again, I think are poorly designed and lead to sloppy roleplaying) to do that.

[OldTrees1]

I am going to be -snip-ing most of your long and solid post.


If you are talking about a flaw system that is not connected to mechanical benefits then there is more potential
I believe there is a design challenge/puzzle/problem/issue/obstacle stemming from 2 factors. This is the meat of our discussion but I will get into it after addressing some of your other questions/comments.


it's not clear how the kind of flaws you are talking about (which are dramatic and supernatural) add engagement to a characters' weaknesses. The two examples you cite add potentially engaging weaknesses but they do not really add engagement on to existing weaknesses.
What kinds of flaws are engaging to a particular player is quite subjective. The oldies of one-armed or blind are other examples some may find interesting (There are also engaging flaws best represented by word choice rather than specific mechanics but those can be excluded from the system if necessary). Theoretically a good flaw system should have content tuned to what was engaging to the players in question.



Thank you. The other issue I have with flaw systems is that they tend to lock characters into the flaws. The one-handed swashbuckler could, at the appropriate level, get a regeneration spell. The impetuous barbarian could learn to look before he leaps into spiked shark-infested pit traps. If the Verbose wizard is annoying everyone, he could discover that no one cares about the third principle of transmogrification, so he should cut to the bottom line then shut up. But most flaw systems go out of their way to make them permanent. That seems to preclude overcoming a lot of flaws that should be overcomeable in the game system. (In Call of Cthulu, it's a bit different--in that case, your SAN and psychoses are a kind of hit points that measure the damage you take until you finally become unplayable).
You're welcome.

This is another issue that a good flaw system should be able to handle.


What kind of rebalancing factor are we talking about? I've seen threads (possibly on the Paizo or WotC boards) where people want to play a blind swordsman and seem to think that should give them blindsight for free. One man's rebalancing factor seems a lot like another man's bonus. Or am I misreading this?

If the benefit is directly tied to the drawback (like an Oracle's curse) that is probably better game design than just granting a free-floating bonus to rebalance the character, but it is more work to create and therefore more likely to get repetitive. I'm not entirely sure that offering any kind of mitigation is a good idea.

So what exactly does go into your hypothetical helpful flaw system?
Does it have benefits attached or just penalties?
Is it optional (pick a flaw if you want one) or required (everyone must take at least two points worth of flaws)?
Are the flaws physical/mechanical, psychological, supernatural, or a mixture of the three?

For my part, I think that optional, no benefits/just penalties is probably the best way to go about it. If someone told me at character creation that they wanted to play a guy with one eye and take a -2 penalty to ranged attacks, I'd be fine with that--but there wouldn't be a bonus feat or trait attached to it. If they wanted to play a guy with a curse--probably fine too but I wouldn't want it to interfere with gameplay too much. If they want to play a character with some kind of a psychological problem--that's fine too but it can't be something that is going to make the character disruptive ("I have a phobia of birds" is ok, "I'm a serial killer" or "I'm a kleptomaniac who always has to steal something from everyone she encounters" not so much).

So far I think we know that an ideal flaw system should be focused on the the flaws, able to handle a variety of flaws of various natures (although each would need DM approval to ensure they would not be inappropriate/disruptive/hogging to the group), and that the flaw system needs to recognize and allow recovery/behavior change away from those flaws.

So you "No benefits, just penalties" system is either the ideal or a good place to start discussion about the final design challenge/puzzle/problem/issue/obstacle.

Penalties weaken a character. Sometimes weakening the character was the goal. Other times the player wanted the specific weakness without being overall weaker(this is where we see "rebalancing" as a subset of "bonus"). Or the player wanted the weakness but the DM did not want the character being overall weaker. Attempts to handle cases #2 and #3 are usually where designers mess up (as you described very well in your critique of the incentive to minmax that usually-always is introduced).

So we are faced with this challenge/puzzle/problem/issue/obstacle, is there a way to make a system where one can introduce weaknesses without making the character overall weaker & avoid introducing an incentive to minmax?

As it stands neither of us knows of such a solution yet although we have some fragments with potential
1) You mentioned having the benefit tied to the penalty like Oracle or Traits(if traits were not boring).
2) If the benefit were not up to the player (RNG or DM choice) that would weaken the incentive to minmax by reducing the control. Even more so if the benefit were chosen last.
3) Bonuses that tend towards generalists don't aid in hyperspecialization.

[Pluto!]

My beef with flaws is the hard time I have explaining why every character in my campaign setting wears thick glasses and is continually doing the jitterbug.

[OldTrees1]

My beef with flaws is the hard time I have explaining why every character in my campaign setting wears thick glasses and is continually doing the jitterbug.

Try goggles and the waltz?

[RoyVG]

In a previous campaign we didn't use the standard flaws, but homebrew flaws that were more impactful without being a simple penalty to a random number. One of our partymemebers had one where everytime he had to travel long distances or find the way to a specific place, he had to roll a d8 to see which way he would go. His character was apparently so bad at directions that he ended up in a different campaign at some point :smallconfused:.

I'd prefer to have flaws that are a little more meaningful in terms of character personality, without being simply about numbers, like the example above.

[TheCrowing1432]

The thing is, for a realistic perspective, it makes more sense to avoid things you are bad at.

If you are inattentive, why would you put yourself in situations where your perception is needed?

If you are shaky and bad with ranged weapons, why would you ever pick up a bow? It makes more sense to play to your strengths, meaning if you are bad with ranged weapons, you'd pick up melee ones instead.

[Piggy Knowles]

It makes sense that someone shaky and nearsighted might prefer the sword to the bow. What makes less sense is that darned if every swordfighter isn't shaky and nearsighted...

EDIT: Nor does it really make sense to me that somehow the shaky and nearsighted ones are actually all better swordfighters than those without such drawbacks.

[Jon_Dahl]

I've drawn a lot of inspiration from this thread and I just finished making outlines of ten new flaws. Before I write them and publish them in homebrew, comments are welcomed. Are these the sort of flaws that we were missing? In principle, I mean!

Awful Accent – The character comes from a remote place where the people have a peculiar accent (both in Common and possible racial language) that makes speech difficult to understand. Despite having left his or her home town, the accent is impossible to shake,
Death Wish – The character takes too many risks in life and death circumstances.
Family to support – The characters has dependents.
Infamous – High-level characters only. The character is widely known as a bad person (e.g. UA Honor Score -20).
Magic Allergy – The character is supernaturally allergic to magic.
Midget – The character is abnormally small.
Pervert – The character has a disturbing and potentially dangerous sexual desire which occupies his and her thoughts on a daily basis.
Phobia – A strong fear towards something commonly encountered, such as fire.
Unlucky – The character is naturally unlucky and cannot take Luck feats.
Weak heart – The character was born with an unusually weak heart, which cannot be healed by magical means, since the heart is naturally the way it is.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Pervert – The character has a disturbing and potentially dangerous sexual desire which occupies his and her thoughts on a daily basis.


Do you really want this at the table? There really aren't many iterations of this that are likely to work out well. Pervert: Character is a serial rapist... and wants to play it out at the table. Pervert: Character is into goblin women. Every time you fight goblins, the player asks, "are there any goblin women?"

This strikes me as likely to never come up because everyone has the good sense to avoid it or to be the kind of icky, uncomfortable experience that destroys a gaming group in a single session. Without even having this flaw in the rules as allowed I had a guy join one of my groups who was going for this angle--his character was asking about orc women and I have no idea what he would have done if his character had found any, nor did I have any desire to find out. It was creepy enough that I would've asked him to leave if he showed up again and would have called the police if he didn't. Putting that on the house rules as an officially allowable character trait sounds like it's asking for trouble.

[Troacctid]

I've drawn a lot of inspiration from this thread and I just finished making outlines of ten new flaws. Before I write them and publish them in homebrew, comments are welcomed. Are these the sort of flaws that we were missing? In principle, I mean!

Awful Accent – The character comes from a remote place where the people have a peculiar accent (both in Common and possible racial language) that makes speech difficult to understand. Despite having left his or her home town, the accent is impossible to shake,
Death Wish – The character takes too many risks in life and death circumstances.
Family to support – The characters has dependents.
Infamous – High-level characters only. The character is widely known as a bad person (e.g. UA Honor Score -20).
Magic Allergy – The character is supernaturally allergic to magic.
Midget – The character is abnormally small.
Pervert – The character has a disturbing and potentially dangerous sexual desire which occupies his and her thoughts on a daily basis.
Phobia – A strong fear towards something commonly encountered, such as fire.
Unlucky – The character is naturally unlucky and cannot take Luck feats.
Weak heart – The character was born with an unusually weak heart, which cannot be healed by magical means, since the heart is naturally the way it is.

Most of these would be reasonable flaws under 5e rules, or aspects in a FATE campaign, but I don't think they fit as well into the framework of the Unearthed Arcana flaw system, which emphasizes mechanical penalties.

Note that phobias have appeared in Heroes of Horror, and Incomprehensible Accent was one of the joke commoner flaws from an April Fool's edition of Dragon Magazine. Also, having "Midget" be a flaw isn't very politically correct.

[Jon_Dahl]

Good points so far. I think the proper course of action is to have something available for the game and let the table decide what is proper for their game. For instance, in my games no one would object to Pervert flaw, as long it wouldn't take up too much of our precious gaming time.

Edit: The name "midget" is for in-game purposes. Dwarf would complicated, because we already have dwarves, and something more politically correct would not go well with fantasy. We cannot have dwarf dwarves, but we can have midget dwarves. It goes with the game.

[martixy]

I think flaws are perfectly okay.

They work best when they're the whole package, but I don't Stormwindily conflate their 2 aspecs together.
They're gonna have their mechanical effect even if the player skips their fluff.

And as far as mechanics go... I'm absolutely fine with their position on the min-max ladder. It's not like characters are getting something for nothing, maybe close to sometimes, but never nothing - that's part of their optimization potential, which again, I'm fine with because a splatbook-heavy 3.5 meta could benefit from the feat buffs.
I also don't make the Groddily mistake of thinking that being able to grant feats for free via DM fiat somehow reflects negatively on the validity of flaws.

[Quertus]

Seriously. Any given set of flaws will only have a limited amount and there will be a very limited number of those flaws that can be minimized in any particular concept. Concept/flaw combinations will become traditional and rote very quickly. In fact, I think that some of the handbooks on these boards even mention a few of them.

Agreed. This problem could be solved by creating hundreds of equally trivial flaws, especially ones that are trivial to all characters, regardless of class / role / etc. How would you feel about this solution to flaw diversity?


B. Flaws which arise through play have a pre-built and shared story behind them; flaws which originate in backstory do not. If a character lost his arm to a sword of sharpness, when the player says, "remember when" the other players who were there can remember and can even correct him if he misremembers the details--"no, you didn't beat him to death with your arm--you were bleeding on the floor; the wizard turned him to stone then turned the stone to mud." If your character is one-armed because of character creation, your "remember when" is just a segue to referencing five pages of poorly written fanfic disguised as character background--it's likely that even the DM only skimmed them.

Guess how many of the people I played with 20 years ago are still around. My signature character's life is all unsubstantiated by "remember when" before, say, 17th level.

And there are just as many "remember when" moments if you play the creation of flaw as there are if you play with existing flaws... as there are when you play most anything else.

Also, precious game time should be about shared experiences. I want to get straight into the action, not spend the first 20 sessions role-playing how my mage studied everything but the art of war at magic university, while someone else roleplays how their one armed drug addict grew up on the streets of some city miles - or worlds - away, while someone else roleplays how their farm boy lost his eye at the age of three. I want to play through these characters' time together, how they utilized their talents to achieve some objective - or just sat around the campfire chatting. Whatever.

Most of my characters have played in multiple groups. I enjoy swapping stories. Have you gotten to experience both sides of that coin? Does it affect your perception of the value of shared backstory flaws / flaws obtained during gameplay?

Also, if, in order to play the character I want to play, I have to acquire my flaws during play, that a) takes time away from the shared story, and b) runs the risk that I won't like the way it was implemented, resulting in a character I don't want to play (or at least not the character I wanted to play). And it limits options. I can't play a character who lost an eye when he was 3 under that system... unless the character's starting age is 3 (or less).


If you have a weak stat, that's all the mechanical representation for engaging weaknesses I need. Flaw systems that come with bonuses attached (pretty much all of them) have never been positive factors in any RPG I've had any experience with.

Have a voluntary flaw system that does not grant extra feats, traits, or bonuses, and I might give you some of the argument, but very few people would take flaws in that situation.

My tactically inept signature character says hi. Rolled stats, no weak stats. And no flaw system. I chose to roleplay him as an academic, with no knack for battle.

I'm going to play flawed characters one way or the other; I like it when systems reward me for doing what I was already going to do anyway. When they encourage others to also play flawed characters, rather than the boring sameness of everyone playing optimally (or, worse, the "you're optimal or you're doing it wrong" mentality), then I think that the flaw system has succeeded.

Yes, most heroes in stories are described by their strengths. That doesn't mean that they didn't have weaknesses - especially if they were real people. For this style, I would recommend maximizing focus on strengths, and minimizing focus on weaknesses. I would say that, despite my love of and propensity for flawed characters, I greatly prefer this style over its opposite.


Why not suggest that players can choose up to three feats at first level (four if human), and let newer players know that because they are less familiar with the game, they can instead choose their "extra" feats later when they have a better idea of what they want their PC to do mechanically? That seems like it would benefit both types of players without causing newer players to feel shorted when they realize later that not taking a flaw at chargen was in fact limiting their options.

Or, let them take flaws, and when they gain the system mastery to realize that extra feats are good, let them choose their flaws (and corresponding extra feats) at that point.

Although I love learning new systems, I have the catch 22 of hating the character creation mini game until I have sufficient system mastery that my vision and the character's stats actually line up. So I empathise with new players who don't want to have to make so many decisions at character creation.

[Rhedyn]

Even in all the splatbooks, I haven't seen that many flaws. I was thinking about making at least 10 new flaws, even though my players don't really care about them, but before I do that, I'd like to hear what playgrounders think about them.

In my opinion, the basic set of the flaws are a bit too mechanical. When I read them, I got the sense of playing with numbers rather than giving my characters more depth. I'm not really complaining about that, because I think many feats are like that too: giving your character more edge in combat regardless of character's background and goals. It's nothing bad, really. I feel that traits are the best way to put more depth into your character, but flaws are mostly just number crunching and min-maxing. I was thinking that my homebrew flaws would be more like "hardcore traits" that give more feel to one's character. But like I said, I'm not complaining, I'm just saying that I'm not perfectly happy with

I would make sure the flaw effects narrative power rather than mechanics the player could ignore.

Things like: darkvision races getting low light vision or humans seeing half as far.

So ugly people always try to talk to someone else in your party or are actively hostile.

So charismatic that you attract stalkers.

Things like that I guess.

[OttoVonBigby]

Dwarf would complicated, because we already have dwarves, and something more politically correct would not go well with fantasy. We cannot have dwarf dwarves, but we can have midget dwarves. It goes with the game.

IMC it is colloquially called "dwarfism," but mechanically, I made it a template called "Undersized creature" because it has beneficial aspects.

[Elder_Basilisk]

Agreed. This problem could be solved by creating hundreds of equally trivial flaws, especially ones that are trivial to all characters, regardless of class / role / etc. How would you feel about this solution to flaw diversity?

It rather depends. If you try that, you have a few options:

1. The flaws are completely trivial regardless of character class/role/etc. In which case, why bother at all? They will not satisfy the (in my experience) vanishingly rare player who claims to want a weakness for their character. Premature balding is not a weakness that most players will find interesting or engaging, though it satisfies the trivial aspect just fine. If you're going for that, you might as well just say, "everyone gets a bonus feat/trait/etc" and not bother with using flaws to camouflage it.

2. The flaws are not actually trivial. In this case, you get the problem described eloquently above: not only is every swordfighter, shaky and nearsighted, they are somehow better swordfighters than the ones who have steady hands and normal vision.

That's why my perspective on flaws is, "If you want a flaw, make one up and I'll give you whatever arbitrary penalty you want on your character sheet as long as it's not game-disruptive--just don't think you're getting anything extra for it."

In point of fact, I really don't want to hear about how your one armed drug addict grew up on the streets of Rel Mord, how the farm boy lost his arm at 3, or how the wizard goofed off at magic university. Not in game. Not out of game. Not at all. Not as a player. Not as a DM (though I do like to get a few paragraphs of background story). I want the game to be about how your group of kids from Diamond Lake gained fame and fortune, allied with Tenser, and stopped the manifestation of Kyuss and the Age of Worms.* Or how you stormed the Temple of Elemental Evil. Or how you stopped the Red Hand of Doom. If you think your wizard needs to be tactically inept or your fighter needs one arm to make that story fun for you, just play him that way at the table or wield a one-handed weapon and no shield. There is no need for a flaw system in order to accomplish that. And there is certainly no need to give you something extra in order to make up for it. You're the one who wants the flaw. Take it and be happy.

Now a mandatory flaw system might have something going for it in some kinds of games, but they should be set up to be significant regardless of your character type/class/etc--perhaps even having some kind of class or role based flaw list to prevent wizards and archers etc from taking melee attack roll penalties.

*EDIT. In my view, the difference between flaws acquired in-game and flaws acquired out of game is that in game flaws should be organically acquired as part of this story--as when ghouls in the mistmarsh clawed the paladin's left arm off. The paladin didn't go into the campaign thinking, "I want to be a one-armed paladin"; it just happened that way. Obviously this will only happen in most D&D campaigns if you run into a specific weapon/monster like a sword of sharpness or are using some house rule like a bolt-on critical hit system (which is generally a bad idea) and you will probably get it cured as soon as possible (if possible which it generally is since magic fixes nearly anything).

[Jon_Dahl]

IMC it is colloquially called "dwarfism," but mechanically, I made it a template called "Undersized creature" because it has beneficial aspects.

Within the game terminology, "midget" goes just fine. Like dwarf. We all understand that we can't people in real life with these terms. It's a game, guys. We can have anything, even pervert PC, if it's ok for the group.

[Sliver]

I think that the flaws being purely mechanical is perfectly alright, because their benefits are purely mechanical as well. RP flaws shouldn't give mechanical benefits. You should take them because that's how you see your character. Heck, I don't see the point of defining what negative RP traits characters can have, besides as a tool for DMs to randomly generate NPCs by.

And if are inclined to ask why being shaky makes someone a better fighter, then are you also confused why Superman having a crippling flaw makes him so strong?

It's a game concept. You give yourself negative stuff to get positive stuff. You give your character negative RP traits so you feel like your character is more fleshed out. Bad for good.

Having mechanical flaws doesn't prevent you from adding other kinds of flaws into the game. It doesn't prevent you giving your players feats without forcing them to take flaws either. Flaws are a houserule, afterall. So use the one that's right for you.

[LentilNinja]

I tell my players they're not allowed to use the Flaws out of UA, only out of the Dragon Magazines (can't remember which ones).

Also, I never allow a player to choose a bonus feat to climb a feat tree. I've seen it before with a Human Necromancer, getting up the Corpsecrafter tree.

[OldTrees1]

Also, I never allow a player to choose a bonus feat to climb a feat tree. I've seen it before with a Human Necromancer, getting up the Corpsecrafter tree.

Something tells me you have reasoning for that ruling that is not self evident...

[atemu1234]

Why are people claiming that flaws make characters more difficult to create? In my experience it just adds a very small layer.

Also, as to claiming characters will just avoid situations where the penalties apply - that's the point. Do you make your fighters have to handle international diplomacy? Wizards wield a great sword? You're supposed to build your characters into a niche.

[Shackel]

To me flaws are a great concept, but, when put down into mechanics, just seem to invite minmaxing rather than flavorful gaming, like dumping a stat. I'm not saying that minmaxing is the only reason flaws were made, or even chosen, but, just from how it's designed, they're kinda asking for minmaxing.

I would like flaws more if they and their bonus were so small(ala Pathfinder Drawback/Traits) that it is not often even worth eking out those one or two points, or if the benefits were built into the flaws, somewhat like the Pathfinder Oracle.

An example could be... let's say Poor Senses, where you can choose one of:

Poor Sight: -3 to Spot
Poor Hearing: -3 to Listen
Tasteless: -2 to saves versus ingested poison
Sensitive Skin: -2 to saves versus contact poison or pain effects


But in return, another sense is bolstered, letting you take the inverse of another one of the flaws(taking Poor Hearing, but having Keen Eyes for -3 to Listen, but +3 to Spot, for instane).

Not all of them have to be complicated, of course: "Reckless" might give you Power Attack for free, but you take double charge penalties and cannot take/use Combat Expertise. It's true that some people specialize towards something that won't let their weaknesses show, but if it's heavy enough to be a Flaw rather than just a lowered stat, it should be something that forced that person to consider other options.

[Troacctid]

Why are people claiming that flaws make characters more difficult to create? In my experience it just adds a very small layer.
It makes it take longer. And it already takes a pretty damn long time.

[Starbuck_II]

To me flaws are a great concept, but, when put down into mechanics, just seem to invite minmaxing rather than flavorful gaming, like dumping a stat. I'm not saying that minmaxing is the only reason flaws were made, or even chosen, but, just from how it's designed, they're kinda asking for minmaxing.

I would like flaws more if they and their bonus were so small(ala Pathfinder Drawback/Traits) that it is not often even worth eking out those one or two points, or if the benefits were built into the flaws, somewhat like the Pathfinder Oracle.

An example could be... let's say Poor Senses, where you can choose one of:

Poor Sight: -3 to Spot
Poor Hearing: -3 to Listen
Tasteless: -2 to saves versus ingested poison
Sensitive Skin: -2 to saves versus contact poison or pain effects


But in return, another sense is bolstered, letting you take the inverse of another one of the flaws(taking Poor Hearing, but having Keen Eyes for -3 to Listen, but +3 to Spot, for instane).

Those are above are listed as traits. Flaws give you a free feat.