Benefits For Additional Flaws

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey guys,

What sort of benefits would you give a PC who wanted to take multiple flaws? I feel like there needs to be some mechanical benefit for taking multiple flaws and RPing them well. Flaws don't necessarily mean that you have multiple personality flaws (although you certainly could!) but really any handicap the player comes up with for their character. Maybe your character has horrible nightmares that prevent them from getting a full night's sleep - so maybe you never recover all your spell slots, but you get a cool benefit from that!

I'm thinking either a +1 to an attribute, a magic item (up to uncommon rarity), or if you take two extra flaws, a feat.

What do you guys think?

[Sirithhyando]

I'd give more advantage and/or inspiration for when this player play his flaws well. No mechanical bonus.

[Keravath]

I would tend to give role playing benefits for a character role playing their flaws. I would also encourage a player not to choose a flaw that they would insist on causing mechanical disadvantages.

Role playing things like being afraid of the dark, checking under the bed and all the closets before going to sleep, insisting on using a light source when it is dark even if they have darkvision would tend to result in receiving inspiration more frequently.

Also, you could try balancing role playing flaws with role playing benefits. Perhaps people feel sorry for the character and thus react positively to requests for aid? (e.g. advantage on certain social checks?).

However, allowing a role playing flaw to directly affect the rules of play (e.g. reduced regain of spell slots) and then compensating with additional class features or magic items to compensate and make the character playable is essentially just homebrewing a new class variant in response to the kind of character that the player wants to play. There is nothing wrong with that at all as long as the DM thinks it is fair and balanced to both the player and others at the table.

One thing to keep in mind is that negative effects can impact other players and they often don't like it ... a good example is the wild magic sorcerer which has a certain cool flair to it but which many are reluctant to include in a group because the surges can significantly impact the others in the group and the course of combat ... turning a winning situation into a TPK in some cases. (I've seen the infamous wild magic fireball happen a couple of times and although neither caused a TPK they did take down other party members and make the fights more challenging than they needed to be).

[Bjarkmundur]

I agree with the posts above. I give inspiration whenever a character's flaw affects the characters, which I think is a fair trade, especially since it is entirely optional.

But then again, it is your table, and as long as you make sure ths isn't abused for optimizing, I think you'll have a great time.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd give more advantage and/or inspiration for when this player play his flaws well. No mechanical bonus.


I give inspiration whenever a character's flaw affects the characters, which I think is a fair trade, especially since it is entirely optional.

Third..ed?

Working to provide an advantage of some type (getting a vantage point against the enemy) usually comes with its own rewards, so there's no reason to provide a reward on top of that (unless the mechanics of the game don't provide ample enough reward. Seducing a barmaid doesn't have a mechanical reward, so reward Inspiration).
Playing to provide a disadvantage deserves some kind of reward for adding drama, otherwise the player will be punished for making the game more enjoyable. Getting drunk in-game often comes with penalties and no rewards, and this is telling your players they shouldn't play drunkards.

The trick is to reward appropriate behavior. Don't reward actions that make the game less fun for the rest of the table. Ensure that all actions that make the game better are rewarded, either by an inherent, mechanical reward (knocking an enemy Prone has its own value), or through an artificial one as Experience, Inspiration, or Advantage.

[Bjarkmundur]

The trick is to reward appropriate behavior. Don't grant inspiration for actions that make the game less fun for the rest of the table.

Positive Reinforcement (and Positive Behavioral Support) are strong tools in the right hands.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hey guys,

What sort of benefits would you give a PC who wanted to take multiple flaws? I feel like there needs to be some mechanical benefit for taking multiple flaws and RPing them well. Flaws don't necessarily mean that you have multiple personality flaws (although you certainly could!) but really any handicap the player comes up with for their character. Maybe your character has horrible nightmares that prevent them from getting a full night's sleep - so maybe you never recover all your spell slots, but you get a cool benefit from that!

I'm thinking either a +1 to an attribute, a magic item (up to uncommon rarity), or if you take two extra flaws, a feat.

What do you guys think? Wrong game system. They delibarately did not do this for a core design reason: bounded accuracy.

[Contrast]

Wrong game system. They delibarately did not do this for a core design reason: bounded accuracy.

Unless one of the rewards for taking a flaw is a flat +5 to a thing I don't see that this has anything to do with bounded accuracy. I agree this sort of thing was likely avoided as a design decision though to avoid complexity and gameification of roleplaying where 5E was trying to move away from seeing characters as spreadsheets...but that's just my own assumptions rather than a clear fact.

While I'm with the 'this is a bad idea' camp, if this is something you want to do I would make any mechanical benefits very small. Rule of thumb - a character should never be incentivised to take a flaw for power gaming reasons (particularly if the flaw is also going to be disruptive). If you are going to do this I would be clear on what 'level' of roleplaying into the flaw you expect as otherwise it's a recipe for disagreements down the road.

In your example - if a player said they wanted a character who experiences night terrors I might say that they automatically wake up for anything over some lower perception threshold to show their jumpy nature.

[Sparky McDibben]

I'd give more advantage and/or inspiration for when this player play his flaws well. No mechanical bonus.

Thank you, but I'm specifically looking for guidance on how to reward a player who wants to play with additional incentives.


Playing to provide a disadvantage deserves some kind of reward for adding drama, otherwise the player will be punished for making the game more enjoyable. Getting drunk in-game often comes with penalties and no rewards, and this is telling your players they shouldn't play drunkards.

The trick is to reward appropriate behavior. Don't reward actions that make the game less fun for the rest of the table. Ensure that all actions that make the game better are rewarded, either by an inherent, mechanical reward (knocking an enemy Prone has its own value), or through an artificial one as Experience, Inspiration, or Advantage.

This is good information. Thank you!

So I'm picking up a consensus that it's not a good idea to provide mechanical benefits. I appreciate the feedback, and I'll be very careful when I implement this idea. Thanks all!

[Chaelos]

Don't give a player a mechanical benefit for additional flaws--that raises the ugly specter of 3.5 min-maxing. I'd reward good roleplaying with advantage, however.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'd give more advantage and/or inspiration for when this player play his flaws well. No mechanical bonus.

I think this bears repeating. Any character should have flaws, as flaws make characters. Good roleplay should be rewarded, and a part of that is addressing one's flaws. So if you need to encourage your players to play flawed people, this is a good strategy. If you need to stop a min-maxer from going overboard, this encourages them to roleplay for that sweet, sweet, sweet bonus. If you just want to reward your players for roleplay, well, this is exactly that.

[Kyutaru]

Reiterating that giving them any sort of mechanical benefit will lead the game down the path to the dark side. Don't tempt your gamers with power or they will take it. The last thing you want is people who are blind, deaf, and dumb because it makes them the sword god. Warlocks and devil worshippers are based around this concept of trading sacrifices for greater potential and like addiction it is very effective at getting people to give in. No benefits. If you want to have additional flaws then you have flaws for no reason. If that makes them mad because they wanted to be extra special for being flawed then steer them away from that line of thinking. The fact is this is a real condition people have, the urge to feel special despite their flaws, and feeding into that logic when it is so backwards doesn't help them or the table.

It's psychologically damaging to reinforce this idea that with great sacrifice comes great power. Sure, many successful people have had to make great sacrifices. But they gained power in spite of them, not through them. They removed obstacles in their path whatever the cost. That's not the same thing at all. Some even feel that they deserve the girl because they have so much to offer when really they're just a nice person, the bare minimum, and have nothing to offer because they aren't attempting to improve themselves to be more attractive or successful or social. This hobby is already full of people enslaved to a fantasy world of their own creation and the last thing you want to do is feed into their delusions. Stick to what D&D trains nerds to do: work hard, succeed at tasks, avoid defeat, and grind your way to glory. That's the tried and tested path to benefits -- not being afraid of spiders.

[NecessaryWeevil]

I think it's fine so long as the other players are fine with it, and so long as you remember the GURPS maxim: a disadvantage that doesn't actually inconvenience the character in play is worth no benefit.

[Demonslayer666]

I think it's fine as well as long as it's a minor benefit. Uncommon magic items or a feat seems like too much, but I would base it not just on the flaw, but the person's character concept (talk to them about why they are doing it). Simply having a set rule that taking an extra flaw grants you X is blah, everyone will just do it. +1 to a stat of your choosing (not theirs), a common magic item, more starting money, or a proficiency (skill, tool, or a language), all seem fine if they are investing in their character.

[Mad_Saulot]

Character flaws dont make for a better character, it increases the burden on the DM if characters have multiple flaws, I would grant nothing for such a player, in fact I'd talk them out of it.

In systems which reward flaws like Vampire: The Masquerade I once had a player that was parapalegic and blind, and completely insane, "unplayable" would be an understatement but I allowed it because I was a young DM and bought into the idea that a flawed character is a good character, it isnt.

[Sparky McDibben]

This is all really good advice - thanks to everyone!

I think I may have given some of you the wrong idea about what sparked this. This is not because a player is asking for a consideration in return for min/maxing. This is because I see some players who prefer to play with more of a mechanical disadvantage and I want to reward that. In this context, "flaw" does not refer necessarily to an RP flaw, but to any other condition that imposes a penalty. For example, if a player came to me and said, "I want to play a blind character - can I have a seeing-eye dog?" I'd want to give them something else, too! This isn't because I'm trying to tempt them into power. Rather, it's because I want to reward a player for voluntarily playing a flawed character, because that flaw gives me a whole bunch more things to threaten (nobody wants to see their dog die), hook into (magical pool that might restore their sight? Sounds like a quest!) or help other players drive tension (what if they meet someone who is objectively ugly but has a beautiful voice? Does that person become a romantic interest? Does the blind character interpret this character differently than the others?). This is just one example, but there are plenty of others.

I'm not bargaining this out with the players WoD-style (blindness is worth this many points!), but I might allow them to come across an item or some other reward. In the case of the seeing-eye dog, maybe the dog is actually a celestial or a fey who can act as their familiar. Or maybe they find an item that allows the blind character to "see" out of it for a brief period of time (maybe 10 minutes a day), but it's not really seeing, but rather echolocation, magical kind-of-sight, etc. It doesn't remove the blinded penalty, but it allows the character to function in combat.

I'd run it by the player OOC to see if they're OK with it, or if there's something they want more. Last thing I'd want is to invalidate someone's character choice with a magic item.

[Bloodyshadow1]

inspiration is fine as a reward but as long as it doesn't get too out of hand than having your players
have a small flaw for a small benefit wouldn't be to bad.
make sure you only let them have one flaw and one benefit if you do
because if you let it out of hand than you'll have people taking a dozen flaws to minmax themselves into
gods at level 1.
Don't reward with items though, no matter how cheap or common, because someone else might be able to use
them even if a specific player finds it useless.
It should always be something small for something small, like a character who is afraid of harpies might
be under the fear condition for the first turn unless than can make a wisdom save, but they're really good
at fighting giants so maybe they can move quicker when fighting giants.

If you want to reward magic items for flaws than maybe reward the player when the flaw is overcome
This man killed my father so if/when we fight him I have to make saves against fear when we do, but after I kill him
I get my father's sword that was stole from me.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is all really good advice - thanks to everyone!

I think I may have given some of you the wrong idea about what sparked this. This is not because a player is asking for a consideration in return for min/maxing. This is because I see some players who prefer to play with more of a mechanical disadvantage and I want to reward that. In this context, "flaw" does not refer necessarily to an RP flaw, but to any other condition that imposes a penalty. For example, if a player came to me and said, "I want to play a blind character - can I have a seeing-eye dog?" I'd want to give them something else, too! This isn't because I'm trying to tempt them into power. Rather, it's because I want to reward a player for voluntarily playing a flawed character, because that flaw gives me a whole bunch more things to threaten (nobody wants to see their dog die), hook into (magical pool that might restore their sight? Sounds like a quest!) or help other players drive tension (what if they meet someone who is objectively ugly but has a beautiful voice? Does that person become a romantic interest? Does the blind character interpret this character differently than the others?). This is just one example, but there are plenty of others.

I'm not bargaining this out with the players WoD-style (blindness is worth this many points!), but I might allow them to come across an item or some other reward. In the case of the seeing-eye dog, maybe the dog is actually a celestial or a fey who can act as their familiar. Or maybe they find an item that allows the blind character to "see" out of it for a brief period of time (maybe 10 minutes a day), but it's not really seeing, but rather echolocation, magical kind-of-sight, etc. It doesn't remove the blinded penalty, but it allows the character to function in combat.

I'd run it by the player OOC to see if they're OK with it, or if there's something they want more. Last thing I'd want is to invalidate someone's character choice with a magic item.

I've always been in big favor of allowing rewards that are worth just less than the risk.

If the Risk is a -10, the reward should be a +9.99. In the case of the blind man, he IS blind, but he also gets blindsense out to 30 feet. Not quite worth being blind for, but almost. Anything worth less than Blindsense of 30ft (like a dog familiar) is also fair game.

It's not like we're playing 3.5, where you have to be worried about someone coming up with some weird blind-fu build that's going to break your game. Or rather, if that's what you're worried about, then worry about it when (if) it becomes a problem.

[Sparky McDibben]

Character flaws dont make for a better character, it increases the burden on the DM if characters have multiple flaws, I would grant nothing for such a player, in fact I'd talk them out of it.

In systems which reward flaws like Vampire: The Masquerade I once had a player that was parapalegic and blind, and completely insane, "unplayable" would be an understatement but I allowed it because I was a young DM and bought into the idea that a flawed character is a good character, it isnt.

I disagree. Flawed characters are more interesting because flaws propel characters to either overcome or satiate them, and either route produces drama. A flawless character is as inert as a noble gas. Any burden should be on the player, not the group. To MOG's point, we ought to reward behavior that drives more interesting narratives. If your paraplegic, blind, and insane character can still pull their weight in a group (which might be possible if they're a caster and you give them a retainer) then let them play. If they can't, then talk to the player.

[Sparky McDibben]

I've always been in big favor of allowing rewards that are worth just less than the risk.

If the Risk is a -10, the reward should be a +9.99. In the case of the blind man, he IS blind, but he also gets blindsense out to 30 feet. Not quite worth being blind for, but almost. Anything worth less than Blindsense of 30ft (like a dog familiar) is also fair game.

See, I've been kind of the other way. That is to say, the Reward should be 10.01 if the Risk is -10. Which is interesting, because I would have said blindsight out to 15 feet would be my limit. :smallsmile: Maybe a more interesting question is, what if the player wants to play a condition that has beneficial effects, like deafened? (See note number 3 on the first post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?590280-Uses-for-an-Underappreciated-Spell-Warding-Wind))


Don't reward with items though, no matter how cheap or common, because someone else might be able to use
them even if a specific player finds it useless.

See, I feel like that's actually a lot easier problem to solve, though. Either it just doesn't work for anyone else (see a hag's weird magic trait in Volo's for an example of this type of magic item), or it turns out to be cursed, or it is somehow otherwise undesirable.

[moonfly7]

For character flaws to be worth giving mechanical benefits, they need to be big, such as being completely and totally blind. Taking the blinded condition permanently. If a PC did that, I'd give a mechanical bonus. Another example is missing a leg or something.

[Man_Over_Game]

See, I've been kind of the other way. That is to say, the Reward should be 10.01 if the Risk is -10. Which is interesting, because I would have said blindsight out to 15 feet would be my limit. :smallsmile: Maybe a more interesting question is, what if the player wants to play a condition that has beneficial effects, like deafened? (See note number 3 on the first post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?590280-Uses-for-an-Underappreciated-Spell-Warding-Wind))

Blindsense sounds strong, but that's only true in the best-case scenario. Caves and such.

Someone who can only see out 30 feet can't use ranged weapons. Can't cast spells. They can barely use a throwing weapon. There's a lot against you. Your only advantage is if you can find a way to blind other characters, and all of those require Concentration and caster levels (and, as previously mentioned, a blind person is severely crippled when it comes to casting magic).

So sure, you can play your Warlock and spam Darkness, but you're still a Warlock that can't make Ranged attacks.

[Bloodyshadow1]

I disagree. Flawed characters are more interesting because flaws propel characters to either overcome or satiate them, and either route produces drama. A flawless character is as inert as a noble gas. Any burden should be on the player, not the group. To MOG's point, we ought to reward behavior that drives more interesting narratives. If your paraplegic, blind, and insane character can still pull their weight in a group (which might be possible if they're a caster and you give them a retainer) then let them play. If they can't, then talk to the player.

I think what they're saying is that a character who is played interestingly is still going to be interesting without adding a dozen flaws to beef up their other abilities and having a character with a dozen flaws who isn't interesting won't make them anymore interesting, the flaws they have just become the character. A character is going to have flaws, even if it's unintentional by the player because people have flaws so having flaws doesn't make someone interesting. There's a reason why there's a spot on the character sheets for flaws.

Flaws definitely can be fun to play and rp, I play a halfling soulknife monk who is mute, she's also a ghostwise halfling so she can talk to people with her mind. She keeps that part a secret from people who she doesn't trust so it made things a bit hard when she first met the party, she also refuses to speak in anything other than signlanguage to people that annoy her.
But I chose that without expecting a benefit from it, if my dm wants to reward me for that than great, but I don't go out of my way to ask for rewards for making my character slightly more difficult

[Man_Over_Game]

I think what they're saying is that a character who is played interestingly is still going to be interesting without adding a dozen flaws to beef up their other abilities and having a character with a dozen flaws who isn't interesting won't make them anymore interesting, the flaws they have just become the character. A character is going to have flaws, even if it's unintentional by the player because people have flaws so having flaws doesn't make someone interesting. There's a reason why there's a spot on the character sheets for flaws.

Flaws definitely can be fun to play and rp, I play a halfling soulknife monk who is mute, she's also a ghostwise halfling so she can talk to people with her mind. She keeps that part a secret from people who she doesn't trust so it made things a bit hard when she first met the party, she also refuses to speak in anything other than signlanguage to people that annoy her.
But I chose that without expecting a benefit from it, if my dm wants to reward me for that than great, but I don't go out of my way to ask for rewards for making my character slightly more difficult

As a lot of systems who use disadvantages with benefits usually state that, in order to be eligible for a benefit, the disadvantage must actually cause problems for the character.

To be honest, in your situation, a better example of a disadvantaged character would be to play a mute character that didn't have telepathy (in which case, my compensation for it would probably be the Message cantrip and ignoring verbal components).

[Mad_Saulot]

I disagree. Flawed characters are more interesting because flaws propel characters to either overcome or satiate them, and either route produces drama. A flawless character is as inert as a noble gas. Any burden should be on the player, not the group. To MOG's point, we ought to reward behavior that drives more interesting narratives. If your paraplegic, blind, and insane character can still pull their weight in a group (which might be possible if they're a caster and you give them a retainer) then let them play. If they can't, then talk to the player.

In principle I agree with you, but characters dont start off flawless, regardless of what choices you make in character generation your character WILL have flaws anyway, either flaws of a class or flaws of a players own psyche, and for good players intentional RP character flaws.

I'm against players taking flaws for the exlicit purpose of getting something in return, the afformentioned parapalegic blind insane vampire was super good at auspex.

[Bloodyshadow1]

As a lot of systems who use disadvantages with benefits usually state that, in order to be eligible for a benefit, the disadvantage must actually cause problems for the character.

To be honest, in your situation, a better example of a disadvantaged character would be to play a mute character that didn't have telepathy (in which case, my compensation for it might even be very limited telepathy).

A lot of systems do have disadvantages balanced with benefits, however 5e doesn't. It's not built into it so using such a method could potentially break a campaign. If you want characters to have flaws fine, but it's how a player rp's them that make them interesting, not that flaw itself.

as for my character, I didn't go in with the idea that making my character mute would get bonuses or granted limited telepathy eventually, but I choose to make her a ghostwise halfling because as a player I also understood that it wasn't just my game, and making a mute character who only knew sign language would be a fun story to read, but not a very fun story to play for the other players and their characters who don't understand sign language. There's a differnece between wanting a mechanic for your RP and being a selfish player who wants the focus to be on them because they demand the spotlight. So unless I wanted my character to be unable to communicate with anyone save for the few who do speak sign language, and just be told what to do because she can't voice her opinion, I needed to ensure she had a way to communicate that wasn't just sign language. So I chose a ghostwise halfling and it worked out because monk is my favorite class and the bonuses worked out, but I basically just cut the middle man out of your suggestion.

[Man_Over_Game]

A lot of systems do have disadvantages balanced with benefits, however 5e doesn't. It's not built into it so using such a method could potentially break a campaign. If you want characters to have flaws fine, but it's how a player rp's them that make them interesting, not that flaw itself.

as for my character, I didn't go in with the idea that making my character mute would get bonuses or granted limited telepathy eventually, but I choose to make her a ghostwise halfling because as a player I also understood that it wasn't just my game, and making a mute character who only knew sign language would be a fun story to read, but not a very fun story to play for the other players and their characters who don't understand sign language. There's a differnece between wanting a mechanic for your RP and being a selfish player who wants the focus to be on them because they demand the spotlight. So unless I wanted my character to be unable to communicate with anyone save for the few who do speak sign language, and just be told what to do because she can't voice her opinion, I needed to ensure she had a way to communicate that wasn't just sign language. So I chose a ghostwise halfling and it worked out because monk is my favorite class and the bonuses worked out, but I basically just cut the middle man out of your suggestion.

Excellently put! While I do feel that you took that burden as part of a personal cost that SHOULD be compensated for, it's obviously not always required. In your case, I'd probably offer a +1 to Intelligence or Wisdom (your pick) as a "racial" bonus. That seems like roughly the value of the telepathy. You could have played another Halfling without being mute and ended up with more overall power, and instead you decided to lose out on combat effectiveness for an interesting role. It's sacrificing your individual strength to improve the roleplaying experience for the team.

Either that's a worthy enough sacrifice to be worth an attribute point, or you're the kind of person to not really care about an extra attribute point to begin with. Both good reasons to see someone get compensated for it, I think.

[FrancisBean]

...if a player came to me and said, "I want to play a blind character - can I have a seeing-eye dog?" I'd want to give them something else, too! This isn't because I'm trying to tempt them into power. Rather, it's because I want to reward a player for voluntarily playing a flawed character, because that flaw gives me a whole bunch more things to threaten (nobody wants to see their dog die), hook into (magical pool that might restore their sight? Sounds like a quest!) or help other players drive tension (what if they meet someone who is objectively ugly but has a beautiful voice? Does that person become a romantic interest? Does the blind character interpret this character differently than the others?). This is just one example, but there are plenty of others.

Sadly, this is just not something D&D does well in any edition. There are plenty of other systems which do this very well, but D&D isn't one of them.

Your example is actually fairly close to something I did in HERO, years ago, and which I hold up as an example of what D&D just doesn't do well. My wife and I played conjoined characters. I had a blind seer and spellcaster. She played my guide dog. In a point-buy system which can account for blindness, lack of opposable thumbs, lack of speech, &c., this works really well. It's a total non-starter in D&D.

You may be playing the wrong system for your players, I'm sorry to say. :smallfrown:

[Chronos]

Back in 3rd edition, there was an optional rule that characters could have some number of flaws from a list in the book (usually up to 2 of them), and get an extra feat in reward for each flaw they took. The result was that guides for various classes all assumed that everyone would have two extra feats, and basically ignored the flaws, because there were always at least a couple that you could find that wouldn't affect your character at all. It was a horrible idea, that resulted in poorly-balanced characters who were more cookie-cutter and less interesting to roleplay.

[darknite]

I see that mechanic as a tar trap. Players leverage the advantages and then find ways to minimize the flaws. It's nearly always a net win for power gamers. I think the game works out fine as is.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Character creation in 5e encourages you (but doesn't require) to pick 1 or more flaws based on background, class and so on in the "questions" part of creation. Following this, the DM is encouraged (but not demanded) to reward advantage or Inspiration when players play to their characters flaws.

I think strictly rewarding mechanical flaws with mechanical benefits is a mistake, and easily leads to gaming the system being its only purpose.

[Luccan]

Generally, good roleplay (including flaws) can be rewarded with inspiration. As roleplay mechanics, they can be overcome through developing the PC and are often easily forgotten about (or sometimes ignored when inconvenient). Therefore, I think any other mechanical rewards for being an especially flawed person would be inappropriate. A more permanent reward, like +1 to an attribute, might feel unfair to other players. Besides which, a person who plays to their myriad flaws is more likely to have inspiration at any given time, essentially a reusable benefit since they'd have it so often. But unlike a free magic item or something similar, it's one any player could attain.

Edit: I also don't think physical impairments should be encouraged by rewarding players in that regard. 3.5 had a flaws system that rewarded you with feats in exchange. What many people did was choose a flaw that would effect the character concept as little as possible, thus making their character basically untouched in the areas they actually cared about. If I'm a wizard who can only hobble along at, say, 15ft a round, that might be inconvenient, but I can overcome that with ranged and mobility spells.