[3.5] Custom Flaw For Review: Hated By The Gods

[Sarethus]

Greetings,

I got some nice feedback from an earlier review thread I made on flaws, so I thought I'd toss this out there for some review as well.

1) Hated By The Gods :

Restriction: Cannot be taken by Divine Classes (Paladins / Clerics etc)

Fluff: Whether due to a heinous deed, family curse or your past life or even simply your race being allergic to divine magic the power of the gods is incompatible with your body.

Effect:

Benificial Divine Spells cast on you function suffer a penalty of 1 Caster level.

Harmful Divine Spells cast on you function with a bonus of 1 Caster level.

Comments: Better then murky eyed in my view in that sooner or later a PC will fight a Divine spellcaster and will be healed be healed/buffed by a fellow divine caster.

2) Incompatible With the Divine:

Restriction: Cannot be taken by Divine Classes (Paladins / Clerics etc)

Effect: Suffer a -2 -3 penalty on saves vs Divine Spells

Comments: This is more of a generic version of the first flaw and is similar to flaws like murky eyed and so on. That being said I do consider this flaw better then murky-eyed or shaky in that while a character may choose to never fire a ranged weapon in their whole career they will sooner or later fight a divine spellcaster (especially if the DM knows they have taken this flaw).



1) Hated By The Gods :

Restriction: Cannot be taken by Divine Classes (Paladins / Clerics etc)

Fluff: Whether due to a heinous deed, family curse or your past life or even simply your race being allergic to divine magic the power of the gods is incompatible with your body.

Effect:


Harmful Divine Spells cast on you function with a bonus of 2 Caster level.

Benificial Divine Spells cast on you function suffer a penalty of 2 Caster level. *If this lowers the caster level below the minimum required for the spell, the spell fails to affect the character.*


2) Incompatible With the Divine:

Restriction: Cannot be taken by Divine Classes (Paladins / Clerics etc)

Effect: You must make a save against all divine spells, even beneficial ones. Against hostile divine spells, roll twice and take the worse result.


Edit:

- Changed IWtD's penalty from -2 to -3 in response to feedback.
- Changed HBtG's penalty from -1/+1 to -2/+2 and a -2 social penalty in response to feedback.
- Changed IWtD's penalty from -3 in general to having to save for beneficial spells to work and having to roll two saves for harmful spells in response to feedback.
- Changed HBtG's penalty to prevent beneficial spells from affecting PC if the -2 CL penalty lowers caster level below the minimum required for the spell in response to feedback.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Hm, the first flaw may be a bit much at first level. Either you're immune to all beneficial spells (CL 0 = no effect), or the flaw doesn't affect them (minimum CL is 1).

Other than that, both look fine to me.

[Ashtagon]

Hated By The Gods: A caster level modifier of one point is less consequential than you might expect. It amounts to a -1 save penalty against hostile spells, or a -1 penalty on hp restored by a clw spell. The penalty should be increased, although I'm not sure how much is fair.

Incompatible With the Divine: The standard saving throw penalty for a flaw is -3, not -2.

[Elxir_Breauer]

That is, however, usually tied to a single Save Type (Reflex, Fortitude or Will), whereas this applies vs. ALL Divine spells that allow a save at all. On the other hand, you could add a stipulation similar to the Superstitious one, where you are forced to make a save even against harmless or beneficial spells, no matter what.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Incompatible With the Divine: The standard saving throw penalty for a flaw is -3, not -2.
Don't forget that it's -2 to all saves (in certain situations). The standard 'bad at saves' flaws are all -3 to a single save, not all three.

Then again, what part of saves is versus divine spells? Less than half, I should think, so the penalty should probably be increased by 1.

[Ashtagon]

That is, however, usually tied to a single Save Type (Reflex, Fortitude or Will), whereas this applies vs. ALL Divine spells that allow a save at all. On the other hand, you could add a stipulation similar to the Superstitious one, where you are forced to make a save even against harmless or beneficial spells, no matter what.

The way I see it, a single save type is about a third of all saves. A single magic type is still about a third of all magic (arcane, divine, psionic, supernatural which doesn't strictly count as either, plus a host of minor magic subsystems which probably count as something else again). They are both (magic type vs. save type) equally likely to come up, they just cut the pie differently.

[Sarethus]

Thanks to everyone who responded.


Hated By The Gods: A caster level modifier of one point is less consequential than you might expect. It amounts to a -1 save penalty against hostile spells, or a -1 penalty on hp restored by a clw spell. The penalty should be increased, although I'm not sure how much is fair.

Incompatible With the Divine: The standard saving throw penalty for a flaw is -3, not -2.

I don't mind increasing the saving throw penalty for IWtD to -3.

However one of things I liked about the Hated By the Gods (HBtG) is that it affected both benificial and harmful spells. That is why I am particularly intrigued by Elxir_Breauer's line below:


That is, however, usually tied to a single Save Type (Reflex, Fortitude or Will), whereas this applies vs. ALL Divine spells that allow a save at all. On the other hand, you could add a stipulation similar to the Superstitious one, where you are forced to make a save even against harmless or beneficial spells, no matter what.

Having to make saves against harmless or beneficial spells intrigues me but I am a bit wary on how exactly it would work without being a bit of a shoot yourself in the foot scenario:

Example: Character A does not want to affected by harmful spells so invests in items to make up for -3 to saves but those same investments also prevent him from being affected by Harmless/Beneficial spells.

I feel that is a bit much for a flaw.

That being said how do you see saves vs harmful & beneficial working ? and how much should the penalty be in this case?

[Gildedragon]

Interesting flaws. The first flaw is a lot by itself; its double whammy effect makes it more like two flaws alone. Instead of the lowered caster level I'd gun for half effect (like aligned the aligned devotion flaw)

Also: this belongs in the home brew section.

[Sarethus]

Interesting flaws. The first flaw is a lot by itself; its double whammy effect makes it more like two flaws alone. Instead of the lowered caster level I'd gun for half effect (like aligned the aligned devotion flaw)


I thought about that but what I didn't want was harmful spells having a 50% greater effect.


Also: this belongs in the home brew section.

I always get confused as to whether general homebrew or 3.5 specific would be better.

[Fizban]

Divine spells constitute only a fraction of spellcasting, which should only constitute a fraction of NPCs, which should only constitute a fraction of encounters. The caster level one is hardly a penalty while the save penalty at -3 is good enough, but neither should come up often enough to matter unless you're using a lot more divine casters than "normal." Dwarves and their fat +2 vs all spells are still laughing (but the do that all the time).

Needs to apply to some monsters: outsiders definitely, undead also good, penalty applying against their spell-like abilities. That boosts the range significantly and makes it a lot harder to nullify your "flaw." Caster level effects should probably be at least +2/-2, it still has little effect on buffs or healing but the incoming damage boost might mildly inconvenience someone.

Now if you put in a weird clause where reducing the caster level below the minimum for the spell means the spell fails to affect you, that's a penalty. At least as long as the party is restricted to divine casters for their healing and restorative effects.

[Sarethus]

While divine spells only constitute a fraction of spell casting, the same could be said about any particular save. Also I do believe that they will be far more relevant then murkey-eyed or shakey for most characters.

Increasing the caster level penalty to -2/+2 is something I am seriously considering but I am just a bit wary of whether it would go to far.

For example right now it is:

-3 to saves versus -1 saves, + 1 CL damage / duration to harmful spells and -1 CL damage / duration of beneficial spells.

Increasing the penalty to -2/+2 CL would mean:

-3 to saves versus -2 saves, + 2 CL damage / duration to harmful spells and -2 CL damage / duration of beneficial spells.

So for a difference of -1 to saves, the character would get + 2 CL damage / duration to harmful spells and -2 CL damage / duration of beneficial spells.

I am unsure if this is a fair bargain.

That being said I am still considering actually making it -2/+2 because I am currently trying to count how many cleric spells directly damage or affect an enemy in the PHB and it does not appear that numerous.

[Belzyk]

The second seems like it would makenit harder to be affected by divine spells. Not weak against them. Like every divine spell out there has to pass a spell resistance check against you. No matter what. And you'd have no Control over it. Least that's what I would think with a name like that

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The second seems like it would makenit harder to be affected by divine spells. Not weak against them. Like every divine spell out there has to pass a spell resistance check against you. No matter what. And you'd have no Control over it. Least that's what I would think with a name like thatSeems like it'd be a good thing, if you had access to other sources of healing and status ailment control. And since there are ways to get that, you could easily use this as 100% beneficial, rather than an actual flaw if you plan for it.

[Quertus]

Don't forget that not all saves are vs spells - saves can be generated by poisons, coup de grace, massive damage, certain flaws, etc etc etc. -3 vs divine is weak compared to -3 fort.

[Fizban]

While divine spells only constitute a fraction of spell casting, the same could be said about any particular save. Also I do believe that they will be far more relevant then murkey-eyed or shakey for most characters.
Highlighting why "flaws" are a bad idea in the first place, I wouldn't balance anything based on those. In theory the fact that you've got an extra penalty on something and thus are just walling off that whole combat option should make you weaker, but in practice we all know that they're only applied to specialized builds that were already ignoring the penalized option and thus suffer no penalty at all.

A good flaw is one you can't ignore, and a weak spot like the one you've proposed is in the right camp. It just needs to apply more often so that the DM doesn't have to shoehorn in extra divine casters (hence applying it to outsider/undead SLAs), and needs a big enough magnitude to really impact your interactions with those foes.

You are correct in that there are rather few cleric spells that use direct caster level to affect their targets, the obvious being damage spells. In particular the "alignment smite" line only does 1d8/2 levels so +1cl is likely to not even affect it (they also appear on many outsider/undead lists). Splatbooks have more spells that deal d6/level, and that's not counting Druid spells, but in either case if the flaw doesn't apply to at least some monsters then it's really not common enough for me to consider it an actual flaw. A magnitude of +2d6 on enemy spells is significant but not immediately deadly in it's own right, and +2/-2 simply looks more impressive than +1/-1. Half the penalty of a flaw is the steps the player/character take to avoid the penalty, but if it doesn't look impressive they won't feel it and once they realize the penalty isn't hurting them they won't even bother.

Is a "flaw" worth it? Well getting to ignore the standard limits on feats that are used to restrict access to many prestige classes and feat lines, and in particular pile on extra abilities at 1st level when you're normally most lacking in stuff, yeah it's worth it. Always assume that power options will be taken by power builds: a flaw will (should) never be taken by someone who doesn't have a specific reason for doing so, and that reason is always going to be powerful. Now if you're using it alongside the standard "flaws" you might want this one to be weak enough to match them but obviously I don't agree with that.

[icefractal]

How about -

Hated by the Gods
You must make a save against all divine spells, even beneficial ones. Against hostile divine spells, roll twice and take the worse result.

Which brings to mind another -

Magic Impaired
You must make a save against all spells, beneficial or not. You are not considered "willing" for spells when unconscious.


Incidentally, Murky-Eyed should not be used as a balance point for anything.

[Sarethus]

Sorry for the late reply, Real Life intruded.

In case I didn't say this before, I really really appreciate the feedback particularly those of you who responded more then once.

Thanks all of you.


Highlighting why "flaws" are a bad idea in the first place, I wouldn't balance anything based on those. In theory the fact that you've got an extra penalty on something and thus are just walling off that whole combat option should make you weaker, but in practice we all know that they're only applied to specialized builds that were already ignoring the penalized option and thus suffer no penalty at all.

A good flaw is one you can't ignore, and a weak spot like the one you've proposed is in the right camp. It just needs to apply more often so that the DM doesn't have to shoehorn in extra divine casters (hence applying it to outsider/undead SLAs), and needs a big enough magnitude to really impact your interactions with those foes.

I generally agree with you the above regarding flaws. My specific issue though is that I wanted this to affect divine beings specifically partly for the RP effect. Expanding this to Outsiders / Undead (particularly when arcane classes can summon / deal with them regularly) is somewhat against that.

Would you consider a flat -2 on all



You are correct in that there are rather few cleric spells that use direct caster level to affect their targets, the obvious being damage spells. In particular the "alignment smite" line only does 1d8/2 levels so +1cl is likely to not even affect it (they also appear on many outsider/undead lists). Splatbooks have more spells that deal d6/level, and that's not counting Druid spells, but in either case if the flaw doesn't apply to at least some monsters then it's really not common enough for me to consider it an actual flaw. A magnitude of +2d6 on enemy spells is significant but not immediately deadly in it's own right, and +2/-2 simply looks more impressive than +1/-1. Half the penalty of a flaw is the steps the player/character take to avoid the penalty, but if it doesn't look impressive they won't feel it and once they realize the penalty isn't hurting them they won't even bother.


Thanks for the feedback Fizban, you have convinced me on increasing the penalty to -2/+2.

However I still don't want really expand the flaw to included Outsiders/ Undead.

What do you think about this also having a penalty of -2 on all social interactions with divine classes? Would that be enough of a penalty?

Also I wanted to ask you about a line in your first post, I must have skipped over it but it sounds intriguing:



Now if you put in a weird clause where reducing the caster level below the minimum for the spell means the spell fails to affect you, that's a penalty. At least as long as the party is restricted to divine casters for their healing and restorative effects.

Could you explain this in more detail please? If I am reading this right, (if the flaw was -2/+2) a 2nd level cleric would not be able to cast cure light wounds on a character with this flaw. While a 5th level cleric (who just got 3rd level spells) would not be able to cast cure serious wounds but would be able to case cure light wounds?



How about -

Hated by the Gods
You must make a save against all divine spells, even beneficial ones. Against hostile divine spells, roll twice and take the worse result.

Edited Opening post in response to feedback.

Which brings to mind another -

Magic Impaired
You must make a save against all spells, beneficial or not. You are not considered "willing" for spells when unconscious.


Incidentally, Murky-Eyed should not be used as a balance point for anything.

I rather like what you wrote about "Hated by the Gods'. It having an effect on both beneficial and harmful spells was what I was originally going for. Although I would place it under "Incompatible With the Divine".

[Fizban]

My specific issue though is that I wanted this to affect divine beings specifically partly for the RP effect. Expanding this to Outsiders / Undead (particularly when arcane classes can summon / deal with them regularly) is somewhat against that.
Fair enough then.

What do you think about this also having a penalty of -2 on all social interactions with divine classes? Would that be enough of a penalty?
Social interactions depend highly on the DM. The default DCs are so easy to abuse that -2 doesn't matter if you're actually running them that way. For unskilled characters or raw charisma checks vs those DCs (without other spell shenanigans) then -2 is a penalty, but still only matters if you actually care about interacting with them beyond beating their face in-something made easier by your bonus feat.

If I am reading this right, (if the flaw was -2/+2) a 2nd level cleric would not be able to cast cure light wounds on a character with this flaw. While a 5th level cleric (who just got 3rd level spells) would not be able to cast cure serious wounds but would be able to case cure light wounds?
Correct. No clerics below 3rd could cast beneficial spells on you without boosting their cl through some other means. A 5th level cleric could cast Cure Light and Cure Moderate on you no problem (at 1d8+3 or 2d8+3), but not Cure Serious or Remove Disease-better not get hit by that Mummy. If the party relies on divine casters for their support then I think this could be a sufficient penalty in place of eating more damage from Outsiders and Undead.

It's effectively like having a level adjustment, but with a *different* character with regards to you. The game expects you can be cured of this or that at X level, but you can't until X+2. The downside is that it's easily nullfied if said divine caster is using one of the many, many ways to boost their caster level. You could instead phrase it such that "divine casters cannot use their highest available level of beneficial spells on you," if those are common in your games.

As for "you must save against spells," I don't find it a useful mechanic. Spells are written so inconsistently that it's unreliable at best and it only encourages further build twisting (like tanking your will save on a Frenzied Berserker so your party can keep you in line). Roll twice+take the worst is a pretty huge penalty, roughly -5 on average but with more chaos since you've got two chances to roll low on a large die.