Anti-Feats in 5e

[Lynnalynna]

So in character building with my group, we came to an interesting question of anti-feats (flaws old school style). The idea being that if a character took a huge flaw that would hinder them, that they could take a feat that wouldn't break early game. What is everyone's thoughts on this tactic? Our group is not a very mid/max group and is more character flavor for the sake of flavor and we each will be taking turns for dm.

Edit: Please read the thread before posting, there is important info throughout that's been said or figured out and a lot of info has been repeated.

[DanyBallon]

So in character building with my group, we came to an interesting question of anti-feats (flaws old school style). The idea being that if a character took a huge flaw that would hinder them, that they could take a feat that wouldn't break early game. What is everyone's thoughts on this tactic? Our group is not a very mid/max group and is more character flavor for the sake of flavor and we each will be taking turns for dm.

My experience with "flaws" is that most players try to get the flaw that would have the least impact on their character, and often forget it after a few sessions. And when a DM try to enforce it, they are told that they are screwing the player.

While the idea is interesting and can be a useful tool for roleplaying, unfortunately, it often just turn out as a min/max tool and needless arguments between the player and the DM.

[nickl_2000]

Seems to me that it can add more flavor to the game and give you more than the inspiration optional rule. I like characters that have a flaw, it makes them more real to me (and more fun to play).


Here's an easy example of how it would work
You character is a healer, they swore to themselves that they would help all in need.

Get the healer feat, but are obliged to use it on every humanoid that they run across.

[Ursus the Grim]

So in character building with my group, we came to an interesting question of anti-feats (flaws old school style). The idea being that if a character took a huge flaw that would hinder them, that they could take a feat that wouldn't break early game. What is everyone's thoughts on this tactic? Our group is not a very mid/max group and is more character flavor for the sake of flavor and we each will be taking turns for dm.

Well, if you're interested in it being a flavor thing, uh, just make it a flavor thing? You don't need an explicit, mechanical thing to make a character with a bad leg. The character flaws presented with the Background rules are also plenty to serve as problems.

If you're taking flaws for the sake of flavor and don't need a min-max group, don't even bother granting feats in return. If the flaw is bad enough to warrant a feat, and it comes up often, its probably going to make the character very difficult to play.

[DanyBallon]

Seems to me that it can add more flavor to the game and give you more than the inspiration optional rule. I like characters that have a flaw, it makes them more real to me (and more fun to play).


Here's an easy example of how it would work
You character is a healer, they swore to themselves that they would help all in need.

Get the healer feat, but are obliged to use it on every humanoid that they run across.

I really like your idea!!!

[Lynnalynna]

The idea was brought up because of my character in the campaign being mute. I made my character as thus because of my actual disability, but conversation did lead there.

[Stan]

My experience with "flaws" is that most players try to get the flaw that would have the least impact on their character, and often forget it after a few sessions. And when a DM try to enforce it, they are told that they are screwing the player.

While the idea is interesting and can be a useful tool for roleplaying, unfortunately, it often just turn out as a min/max tool and needless arguments between the player and the DM.

That's how it's often wound up in my experience as well, though it varies with group.

You'd have to have a serious flaw to merit an entire feat at 1st level, like missing an arm almost. How about alternative perks that don't affect mechanics as much? Possibilities:


+1 to one ability score

Start with 2 inspiration, max inspiration is 2, get one for free at the beginning of every session.

1-2 skill proficiencies. Maybe either 2 skills or expertise in 1.

Or, you could take a bit from FATE and get a free inspiration every time your flaw has an effect.

[Lappy9001]

Well, if you're interested in it being a flavor thing, uh, just make it a flavor thing? You don't need an explicit, mechanical thing to make a character with a bad leg. The character flaws presented with the Background rules are also plenty to serve as problems.

If you're taking flaws for the sake of flavor and don't need a min-max group, don't even bother granting feats in return. If the flaw is bad enough to warrant a feat, and it comes up often, its probably going to make the character very difficult to play.I'm in this boat to be honest. Currently, I'm playing in Curse of the Crimson Throne and I took the addict trait which gives a small Fortitude buff. But I'm just roleplaying a character who spent the better part of their life addicted to shiver and has been clean for close to a decade, but any run-in with the stuff could potentially get really bad really fast.

[Edgerunner]

Back in the days of AD&D there was a supplement that came out with a Boogy Table. It was a list of Flaws that could be added to characters via Random Roll and I always found it made the characters even more unique.

I was running a Dwarvish Fighter who was Claustrophobic. Made for Tons of wonderful roll play.

[Edgerunner]

You'd have to have a serious flaw to merit an entire feat at 1st level, like missing an arm almost. How about alternative perks that don't affect mechanics as much? Possibilities:


+1 to one ability score

Start with 2 inspiration, max inspiration is 2, get one for free at the beginning of every session.

1-2 skill proficiencies. Maybe either 2 skills or expertise in 1.

Or, you could take a bit from FATE and get a free inspiration every time your flaw has an effect.




I have to agree here. Even a Half Feat is a tad excessive IMO. But a nice "+" could fit in very well.

[Naanomi]

In my experience, players who really want to play a uniquely flawed character (as opposed to those who want to squeeze bonus points out of the system)... just will do so, without any incentive needed

[Lynnalynna]

In my experience, players who really want to play a uniquely flawed character (as opposed to those who want to squeeze bonus points out of the system)... just will do so, without any incentive needed

As I mentioned above it was brought up after I mentioned my Warlock was going to be mute due to the fact I have IRL issues with loosing the ability to speak. So the group mentioned benefits for me as well.

[Lynnalynna]

That's how it's often wound up in my experience as well, though it varies with group.

You'd have to have a serious flaw to merit an entire feat at 1st level, like missing an arm almost. How about alternative perks that don't affect mechanics as much? Possibilities:


+1 to one ability score

Start with 2 inspiration, max inspiration is 2, get one for free at the beginning of every session.

1-2 skill proficiencies. Maybe either 2 skills or expertise in 1.

Or, you could take a bit from FATE and get a free inspiration every time your flaw has an effect.




I personally like this idea tbh.

[Maxilian]

This reminds me of the Vampire: Masquerade feat system that also had flaws; I hated that.

[Ursus the Grim]

As I mentioned above it was brought up after I mentioned my Warlock was going to be mute due to the fact I have IRL issues with loosing the ability to speak. So the group mentioned benefits for me as well.

This is actually something I find myself pretty uncomfortable exploring. Not referring to muteness in general, but I'm not sure how I feel about boons being given out for characters with disabilities. I'm of the opinion that being unable to do something "normal" doesn't make you any more or less of a person. A blind man doesn't need to be Zatoichi or Daredevil to "make up" for it. A paralyzed man doesn't need to be Stephen Hawking to "make up" for it.

But when we enter an RPG where disabilities have the potential to make one character 'worse' than another, it gets blurry. IRL, a seeing man and a sightless man can both go buy a carton of milk from the convenience store. The sightless man might have some difficulty, comparatively, but its pretty doable.

In D&D (5e, for instance), the blind man is going to have disadvantage on attacking everything, and everything else will have advantage to hit him. In a heroic game where character traits are magnified significantly, so too are their disabilities. Thus, some people feel the need to give out some kind of boon to 'fix' the challenge. While Jeff the retiree might not need to be Zatoichi IRL, in game his blind character probably does.

As a more specific instance: when you play a mute Warlock, I imagine the 'free' telepathy would be very useful. You can definitely play a mute warlock and have it be totally playable. When it came to spells, did you cast only the eight Warlock spells that have no Verbal Component? Or was magic reworked to not require it? Was your character given some specific way to ignore the components - ie, take sorcerer levels and get Subtle metamagic?

I guess what I'm getting at, is this is another example where verisimilitude and real-world equivalencies need to be handled with some degree of consideration.

[Lynnalynna]

This is actually something I find myself pretty uncomfortable exploring. Not referring to muteness in general, but I'm not sure how I feel about boons being given out for characters with disabilities. I'm of the opinion that being unable to do something "normal" doesn't make you any more or less of a person. A blind man doesn't need to be Zatoichi or Daredevil to "make up" for it. A paralyzed man doesn't need to be Stephen Hawking to "make up" for it.

But when we enter an RPG where disabilities have the potential to make one character 'worse' than another, it gets blurry. IRL, a seeing man and a sightless man can both go buy a carton of milk from the convenience store. The sightless man might have some difficulty, comparatively, but its pretty doable.

In D&D (5e, for instance), the blind man is going to have disadvantage on attacking everything, and everything else will have advantage to hit him. In a heroic game where character traits are magnified significantly, so too are their disabilities. Thus, some people feel the need to give out some kind of boon to 'fix' the challenge. While Jeff the retiree might not need to be Zatoichi IRL, in game his blind character probably does.

I guess what I'm getting at, is this is another example where verisimilitude and real-world equivalencies need to be handled with some degree of consideration.

It actually came up as my wife is concerned with the fact that she is worried my character being mute will make it almost too hard on a new group. But it came down to it being easier for me to play a non-verbal character due to my issues, and was just more comfortable as of late due to my issue.

But I definitely can see the point being made here though, being that there is no boon to having a disability IRL, and this is something that I have learned in a very hard fashion over the past year and a half.

As you said, the lines do become a little blurred when it comes to pen and paper.

*Sorry for the horrid english, I'm typing as I get ready for work.

[Tanarii]

You can definitely play a mute warlock and have it be totally playable. When it came to spells, did you cast only the eight Warlock spells that have no Verbal Component? Or was magic reworked to not require it? Was your character given some specific way to ignore the components - ie, take sorcerer levels and get Subtle metamagic?7 in the PHB, and 3 of them are cantrips, one that works with Cha skills you can't easily use while Mute (Friends), and one of them that's a Trap option especially for the spells available to this character (True Strike), although Minor Illusion is good. The 1st level spell is Illusionary Script. You need to wait until 3rd level to get your first effective spells (Counterspell & Hypnotic Pattern). And the only spell after that is level 8 Demiplane. So effectively a Mute single-class Warlock is using his spell slots for Hypnotic Pattern and Counterspell, starting at level 5. That's a pretty huge limitation, easily worth a Feat.

[hymer]

So in character building with my group, we came to an interesting question of anti-feats (flaws old school style). The idea being that if a character took a huge flaw that would hinder them, that they could take a feat that wouldn't break early game. What is everyone's thoughts on this tactic? Our group is not a very mid/max group and is more character flavor for the sake of flavor and we each will be taking turns for dm.

I'm using a system where, if you reduce your highest number in your ability score array by two, you can start with one from a list of feats. It pretty much works, except for one player who took a feat mostly to get +1 in the PC's attack stat, willing to trade that for two points in the secondary stat (having two equal stats as the highest).

[Naanomi]

Only being able to speak to use verbal components seems to create natural story to pursue... did you 'sell your voice' to the fey for your magic? Did your contact with the old ones shatter your mind to all speech besides the horrid language of your spellcasting? Did your fiendish master rip your tongue out to prevent you from sharing his secrets, and your spells are cast with his voice from your mouth?

[Ursus the Grim]

It actually came up as my wife is concerned with the fact that she is worried my character being mute will make it almost too hard on a new group. But it came down to it being easier for me to play a non-verbal character due to my issues, and was just more comfortable as of late due to my issue.

For what its worth, this is one of many reasons I love playing a druid. I have a very real reason not to chime in when the party's discussing the plan. It lets me avoid confrontation (or my habit of over-compensating for insecurity by trampling verbally everywhere.)

"Well, we're split 50/50. Ursus, what do you think we should do?"
". . . woof!"

[nickl_2000]

It actually came up as my wife is concerned with the fact that she is worried my character being mute will make it almost too hard on a new group. But it came down to it being easier for me to play a non-verbal character due to my issues, and was just more comfortable as of late due to my issue.

But I definitely can see the point being made here though, being that there is no boon to having a disability IRL, and this is something that I have learned in a very hard fashion over the past year and a half.

As you said, the lines do become a little blurred when it comes to pen and paper.

*Sorry for the horrid english, I'm typing as I get ready for work.


I saw your previous thread about this. Did you ever talk it over with your DM about how you would handle it?

[CaptainSarathai]

L5R's system does the "flaws for boons" thing, but they use a point system.
Something more minor is worth less. You're near-sighted and have trouble making ranged attacks? Meh, that's worth a few points.
More acute issues are worth more points. You're outright blind?! That's worth several points.
Boons are then rated the same way, as are skill increases. So the points gained from your blindness could be used for an ASI, or a Feat, or you could just get a bunch of minor boons.

It does help to have a defined rule for the flaws, though. It's one thing to say, "my character is afraid of the dark," and quite another to say, "and therefore has disadvantage when attacking in any environment where the ambient light is considered 'dark.' Even a torch won't help him."
If the flaw is 100% roleplay, it will be downplayed and avoided. If it is part of the roll playing, it will have an impact and will feature more heavily in the character.

No joke, my favorite character ever was a one-armed, near-sighted duellist. His lack of an arm made him bad at fighting outside of the duel-mechanics, and with certain weapons, as well as at most physical tasks (as expected). However the trade off was that I made him very good at the dueling mechanics. His nearsightedness was a wash, because the advantage that I "bought" with it, was a 'foreign trinket' - in this case, glasses.
So I had a one-armed, bookish Investigator wandering the countryside solving crimes and mysteries, and getting into duels when his findings led him to accuse someone of dishonor.

[Lynnalynna]

I saw your previous thread about this. Did you ever talk it over with your DM about how you would handle it?

We all are dmning at some point, so it's been talk to amongst the four of us. The campaign is being handled on an episodic manner so that our busy work schedules doesn't destroy our ability to progress.

As to answer all the mentions of verbal components, we are using a suggestion someone else gave in the other thread about using rythmic bells to use as a verbal component so that silence still works and that I'm not useless.

And as to the how, they got their throat torn apart by a wild animal is the basic idea of how they went mute, I wanted a non-magical reason because this character is kind of how I'm dealing with the reality of what is happening (sorry, don't mean to sound mopey or personal). Another thing we did is give me and my wife a free language of "sign" just so our characters have a communication even though it won't help with most the npc populace.

The campaign is going to be an urban intrigue campaign, so diplomancy is a huge part of it, making communication (or lack there of) something that will actually push the game as much as combat.

Figured I'd give some background on the campaign.

[The Vanishing Hitchhiker]

Sounds like you have most of the details worked out. I say ask your group to just try things out as is for a few sessions. If it seems like your character's accommodations aren't working out, revisit the topic then. The advantage is, you'll all have a better idea of what works, doesn't work, and why, so if need be, you can pick something more suitable than you might have initially.

[JackPhoenix]

Or, you could take a bit from FATE and get a free inspiration every time your flaw has an effect.

Or, in other words, exactly as Flaws work in 5e. Flaws are already in game as part of the character's personality, with minimal mechanical effect.

[Lynnalynna]

Or, in other words, exactly as Flaws work in 5e. Flaws are already in game as part of the character's personality, with minimal mechanical effect.

My character took the standard background flaw, but the question was on the fact that my character is mute and my wife (who is in the group) wanted to find the best option to make things more fair for me as the mute part was due to IRL issues speaking.

[furby076]

I find that players inject flaws into their characters naturally.
1. Unable to control the fact they are powerful, and abuse power all the time. Oh look, you are now a hunted villain
2. Greedy
3. Say dumb things that get the group in trouble
4. Make bad decisions in battle, even though they ars "battlemasters"

[Specter]

I think this should only happen if the player wants to make a character with a flaw (like a one-eyed pirate), and the DM comes up with something to make up for it. If you decide these flaws beforehand, some player will just find a way to abuse them (like in 5e).

[Lynnalynna]

I think this should only happen if the player wants to make a character with a flaw (like a one-eyed pirate), and the DM comes up with something to make up for it. If you decide these flaws beforehand, some player will just find a way to abuse them (like in 5e).

As mentioned before, we have all of us available as dms for this campaign and the character has the flaw specifically because it is acting as a kind of release for a lot of fear, worry, and depression coming from the fact that I've been loosing my ability to speak, having multiple days in a row where I am mute. It's my way of being strong so that I can face this challenge.

[blurneko]

I don't like taking flaws for the sake for a boon. I support taking flaws simply because you want this for your character. Why do you even need a mechanical boost? Whether a group is a min/max group or not, I see no reason to complicate matters more.

[Lynnalynna]

I don't like taking flaws for the sake for a boon. I support taking flaws simply because you want this for your character. Why do you even need a mechanical boost? Whether a group is a min/max group or not, I see no reason to complicate matters more.

As mentioned above, I'm not taking the flaw for a boon, my wife was suggesting I take a boon of some form because she didn't want me to be unfairly behind due to a character choice that I'm making due to an IRL situation. The reason I'm taking the flaw is I've been slowly loosing my ability to speak entirely IRL and I'm using DND to kind of be a release for me and help me face the reality of me going mute.

[Dracul3S]

How much of an impact is this flaw having on your warlock? I'm not sure how many spells with verbal components the warlock list contains. A simple solution to make your character not suffer too much: Replace the spells on the list with verbal components with spells without from other lists. There, your flaw's probably biggest mechanical impact is negated. Just check the exchanged spells with your dm and the rest of your group, to ensure the exchange is fair. I'm no fan of actual power in exchanges for a flaw, but an ability that simply negates some of its disadvantages? That might be fine.

[Garresh]

Flaws are heavily group dependent TBH. I like the idea of them, and some groups have used them as good roleplay flavor, particularly in Shadowrun 4e where the flaws were awesome. But some groups will just minmax it and make it boring. TBH, I think the power of the boon should vary with the difficulty of the flaw, and you should focus less on minmax OP feats given, and more on roleplay tied feats, or rather, make the specific anti-feat focused on the feat itself.

For instance, you could tie to the Actor feat to a feat called "Self-Absorbed", which gives the character a penalty to insight checks, and wisdom saves against charms.

Or, you might tie Inspiring Leader to "No One Left Behind", a feat which makes it so the character cannot leave any party member or allied NPC under their leadership in danger. Generally, if someone is being attacked, they gain a variation of the frightened condition, where they most move towards the target and attack it, or else they suffer disadvantage on attacks against other targets.

And so on. Make the faults specific to the feats themselves, and you can make it drip with flavor and be fun as hell.

[Lynnalynna]

How much of an impact is this flaw having on your warlock? I'm not sure how many spells with verbal components the warlock list contains. A simple solution to make your character not suffer too much: Replace the spells on the list with verbal components with spells without from other lists. There, your flaw's probably biggest mechanical impact is negated. Just check the exchanged spells with your dm and the rest of your group, to ensure the exchange is fair. I'm no fan of actual power in exchanges for a flaw, but an ability that simply negates some of its disadvantages? That might be fine.


My wife brought it up as this is an Intrigue campaign. We figured a work around for the spells, it is more because of communication with the party and npc interactions where it will be a flaw here. It might not be as bad as she worries, but she is afraid that it might really hinder the group (beyond just spellcasting); that is why she suggested I take some kind of benefit tbh.

[Doug Lampert]

My experience with "flaws" is that most players try to get the flaw that would have the least impact on their character, and often forget it after a few sessions. And when a DM try to enforce it, they are told that they are screwing the player.

While the idea is interesting and can be a useful tool for roleplaying, unfortunately, it often just turn out as a min/max tool and needless arguments between the player and the DM.

Ditto.


In my experience, players who really want to play a uniquely flawed character (as opposed to those who want to squeeze bonus points out of the system)... just will do so, without any incentive needed

Also Ditto.

My own opinion is that a flaw is adequately compensated for by a small amount of bonus XP or something like gaining inspiration when it comes up, and only when it comes up. The GM and player can work out what sort of bonus the player gets (XP only works if the GM is willing to run for multiple levels, but ultimately roleplaying XP is exactly the correct reward).

[Lynnalynna]

Ditto.



Also Ditto.

My own opinion is that a flaw is adequately compensated for by a small amount of bonus XP or something like gaining inspiration when it comes up, and only when it comes up. The GM and player can work out what sort of bonus the player gets (XP only works if the GM is willing to run for multiple levels, but ultimately roleplaying XP is exactly the correct reward).


As I've said about the situation, it was brought up for me by my wife as my character is mute due to me having issues loosing the ability to speak irl. The character is a point of strength for me, making it easier for me dealing with going mute, but she wanted things to be fair for me and the group.

[Armored Walrus]

To answer the OP, having actually read every post, unlike apparently some of the posters before me :P, it sounds to me like you and your group have already figured out what accommodations your character needs in order to be playable. I don't think an offsetting boon is necessary.

But it's your group. If everyone's ok with it, go for it. I don't think it would be 'unfair' either way.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'm not a huge fan of mechanical flaws.

It can be achieved very well via roleplaying if you truly want the flaw, otherwise it's just another tool to further optimize your character for maximum firepower.

I mean, sometimes if you want to have a major disadvantage, you can work it out with you GM and make an individual, appropriate bonus.

[Lynnalynna]

To answer the OP, having actually read every post, unlike apparently some of the posters before me :P, it sounds to me like you and your group have already figured out what accommodations your character needs in order to be playable. I don't think an offsetting boon is necessary.

But it's your group. If everyone's ok with it, go for it. I don't think it would be 'unfair' either way.

Thank you, it was more during character creation that I posted this, and we did figure certain work around, so I'm hoping the character is prepared lol. I did take gear I normally wouldn't (signal whistle, bells, etc) so this should be interesting.

[Silfazaris]

Few players are willing to roleplay their flaws. They usually use them to be more powerful (D&D 3.5)

Once, I played a 3.5 game with a cursed tiefling cleric of a deity of justice. We used the curse as a flaw (acting as 2 flaws, gave me 2 feats).
The game stopped when she reached 12th-level

After 7 years that DM is DMing again and allowed no flaws. Even though I decided to keep the same background (new game, new story from 4th-level).
She is cursed and if she keeps casting necromancy spells she will be corrupted.
This is a huge flaw that will prevent me from resurrecting my party and casting some other spells. And no, this is not the whole curse. When she reaches a certain age an outsider lich named Katharsis will come to take her soul into Thanathos to serve Orcus for the rest of her new undead life (like her mother, grandmother, etc).

I still wanted to play with this toon.

The thing is: I would be happy if I was granted an extra feat or two for this huge drawback on my character, but, I do not NEED them to make my character good or memorable.

Almost always players get flaws to be more powerful, not because they want their characters to have a flaw. And like said above, they forget their flaws after a few sessions of game.

I know I talked about 3.5, but, the same rules apply from my point of view.
D&D 5E already gives the characters flaws from their backgrounds. They are not "physical" flaws, or flaws that ruin characters stats, but that's how I always thought flaws should be: roleplaying flaws, not -1 AC, -2 whatever.


But if you still want to allow flaws in your game, my suggestion is: let them create their backgrounds. If you believe that their flaws will drastically impact the roleplay, and you really want to grant them a feat for their flaw. Let them get 1 extra feat, BUT, make sure you always focus on their flaws, so they are not forgotten. Examples of what I consider flaws are:


- Someone who refuses to use spells from a school of magic who would obviously be needed in a campaign. Like my character who refuses to cast spells from necromancy school, thus making the only cleric from the group unable to resurrect.

- A blind character who haven't learn any meaning of countering his blindness, thus relying on smelling and hearing to do things (Don't award a blind character capable of tremorsensing or whatever a feat, it's an overcome flaw, so it's not a flaw)

- A barbarian who isn't capable of controlling his own Fury (just like a Frenzied Berserker or Orson from Loddoss War).

- A fighter/paladin who has a code of conduct that forbids him to use ranged weapons.

- A mute bard (Lol, joke)


If you really want to make these flaws something interfering in character's stats, don't make something minor like -1 penalty to attacks to give them a free feat. Make something like "disadvantage on attack rolls in the dark (because the character is afraid of dark) even if there's a torch, faerzress or whatever light around.

I hope you can figure out how to do this. I still disencourage you to do so...

[Lynnalynna]

Few players are willing to roleplay their flaws. They usually use them to be more powerful (D&D 3.5)

Once, I played a 3.5 game with a cursed tiefling cleric of a deity of justice. We used the curse as a flaw (acting as 2 flaws, gave me 2 feats).
The game stopped when she reached 12th-level

After 7 years that DM is DMing again and allowed no flaws. Even though I decided to keep the same background (new game, new story from 4th-level).
She is cursed and if she keeps casting necromancy spells she will be corrupted.
This is a huge flaw that will prevent me from resurrecting my party and casting some other spells. And no, this is not the whole curse. When she reaches a certain age an outsider lich named Katharsis will come to take her soul into Thanathos to serve Orcus for the rest of her new undead life (like her mother, grandmother, etc).

I still wanted to play with this toon.

The thing is: I would be happy if I was granted an extra feat or two for this huge drawback on my character, but, I do not NEED them to make my character good or memorable.

Almost always players get flaws to be more powerful, not because they want their characters to have a flaw. And like said above, they forget their flaws after a few sessions of game.

I know I talked about 3.5, but, the same rules apply from my point of view.
D&D 5E already gives the characters flaws from their backgrounds. They are not "physical" flaws, or flaws that ruin characters stats, but that's how I always thought flaws should be: roleplaying flaws, not -1 AC, -2 whatever.


But if you still want to allow flaws in your game, my suggestion is: let them create their backgrounds. If you believe that their flaws will drastically impact the roleplay, and you really want to grant them a feat for their flaw. Let them get 1 extra feat, BUT, make sure you always focus on their flaws, so they are not forgotten. Examples of what I consider flaws are:


- Someone who refuses to use spells from a school of magic who would obviously be needed in a campaign. Like my character who refuses to cast spells from necromancy school, thus making the only cleric from the group unable to resurrect.

- A blind character who haven't learn any meaning of countering his blindness, thus relying on smelling and hearing to do things (Don't award a blind character capable of tremorsensing or whatever a feat, it's an overcome flaw, so it's not a flaw)

- A barbarian who isn't capable of controlling his own Fury (just like a Frenzied Berserker or Orson from Loddoss War).

- A fighter/paladin who has a code of conduct that forbids him to use ranged weapons.

- A mute bard (Lol, joke)


If you really want to make these flaws something interfering in character's stats, don't make something minor like -1 penalty to attacks to give them a free feat. Make something like "disadvantage on attack rolls in the dark (because the character is afraid of dark) even if there's a torch, faerzress or whatever light around.

I hope you can figure out how to do this. I still disencourage you to do so...

It's going to be a mute warlock and the character is going to be mute because of me going mute irl.

[MBControl]

I feel that this is the essence of D&D. This is pure collaboration, and group story telling and I'm all for it, with some conditions.

- It must be balanced. The flaw should equally counter weigh the boon.

- They player MUST commit to the flaw. If they don't accept the flaw as a key aspect of the the PC, then you're just making them OP.

Keep it balanced, and you can create memorable characters and role-play.

[furby076]

As mentioned above, I'm not taking the flaw for a boon, my wife was suggesting I take a boon of some form because she didn't want me to be unfairly behind due to a character choice that I'm making due to an IRL situation. The reason I'm taking the flaw is I've been slowly loosing my ability to speak entirely IRL and I'm using DND to kind of be a release for me and help me face the reality of me going mute.j

aww man, that sucks. I know a person who slowly lost the ability to speak..really im sorry.

i am making a character who happens to be a mute. Im not giving her a boon, but she will be a mystic (awakened mind) so will have telepathy at will. Maybe something like that? Your character doesnt like people to know he has telepathy (cause people freak out about mind readers), so rarely employs it. Then the character is relegated to write or use hand gestures for the most part...on occasion you can employ telepathy (when you are able to speak, or craft your thoughts on paper)

[GPS]

This is literally the exact amount of days for me to be able to call thread necro! It's not every day you get a straight 45. I think that means tidings of good luck onto you or something?

[Gryndle]

In my group flaws for feats works fine. But my group also has the advantage of being made up of mature adults that see no need to be jerks during their one night of recreational time away from work and home, so they spend less time trying to break or game the system. And in the rare event they do try to, I call them on their bs and we move on.

even with that some flaws do have more impact than others. if your game is combat focused then social flaws are going to mean less; if you game is geared to social challenges then combat flaws aren't going to affect much.

[Hrdven]

It's going to be a mute warlock and the character is going to be mute because of me going mute irl.i am really sorry to hear about your condition. It is great that dnd is at least giving you some distraction and that your wife is there supporting you. I wish you all the best for the future.

To be honest I really dislike flawing systems. One of the reasons is that people end up playing all the sorts of disabled characters just for the sake of getting a few extra points. Like those who play a fighter with gigantism just to get a +1 strength, or a synaestetic for an extra spell. It seems very insensitive towards people who have these conditions in real life.

Moreover they are a distraction and make character creation more complex than needed. You have to think about whether it is worth making your character addicted to something in exchange for a +1 to a characteristic or a feat. It's really distracting and time wasting, I just want to start playing :-).

In my experience flaws only work well in live role playing, where you play a character just once or twice, and defects can represented visually or acted directly.

[Joe the Rat]

Skimming through, these are my favorites thus far:

Flaws already exist. Add another one. (Bonus inspiration pool optional)
FATE Flaws - which is the above, really. GM Intrusions let the GM invoke the flaw, or you decide - either way you get a boon.

Tweaking:
Anti-features. You know how you get a ribbony utility feature with Backgrounds? You get a ribbony anti-utility feature with Flaws. The biggest issue with being mute: Negotiations. Definitely going to impact your ability to haggle over prices, make your case for entry, etc. So what should you get in return? A feature-grade ability.

All-in-one traits. Your flaw and associated boon are a single trait. You are blind, but you can use either an action or bonus action to see through your familiar (so you can cast regular or bonus action spells as you like). Craven: -1d6 on your saves vs. fear / whatever your DM does to resolve intimidation, +1d6 damage when you have advantage. Famous: It's easier to get places, and get freebies, but it's impossible to keep a low profile (exaggerated Noble). Vampires Killed My Girlfriend: An obsessive, irrational - to - suicidal need to hunt and kill vampires (pure roleplay - suggested by and adhered to by the player), for advantage on vampire-related rolls (mostly Religion, History, Perception, Insight), and a bonus inspiration (above normal inspiration) when you realize you're encountering one.


Really, flaws work best not as "what can I take to get more stuff" but "I want my character to have a serious issue, is there something that can balance that?"