PDA

View Full Version : What is the difference between Lesser and normal Planetouched?



Frosty
2008-04-26, 06:19 PM
I think their stats are all the same right except their type is slightly different or something? Also, where can I find the entry for a Lesser Aasimar?

EDIT: As a Lesser Aasimar, can I still Alter Self myself into an Outsider?

Prince_of_Blades
2008-04-26, 06:41 PM
The only source for lesser races that I know of is PGtF, page 190. And no, you can't Alter Self into outsiders, because your type is Humanoid (Planetouched).

The_Snark
2008-04-26, 06:44 PM
The stats are all the same, except that the LA is 0 and the type is Humanoid rather than Outsider. Which means no, you cannot Alter Self into an outsider as a lesser planetouched.

Frosty
2008-04-26, 06:50 PM
Phooey, and I thought Dward Ancestor looked SWEET to alter into.

In any case, do you think a lesser aasimar is a good +0 race? Gets some nice stats adjustments, darkvision, and have some resistances.

Project_Mayhem
2008-04-26, 06:55 PM
In any case, do you think a lesser aasimar is a good +0 race? Gets some nice stats adjustments, darkvision, and have some resistances.

I hear its a bit broken. Well, not broken compared to half the stuff bandied around, but still a case of 'have your cake and eat it'

Edit:

Actually, I'm gonna rephrase that - I don't mean broken. More cheesy.

Bag_of_Holding
2008-04-26, 06:57 PM
Yeah, Lesser Aasimar/Tielfling are quite powerful LA +0 races. For example, a lesser tiefling is like grey elf, but better.

Kizara
2008-04-26, 06:58 PM
Phooey, and I thought Dward Ancestor looked SWEET to alter into.

In any case, do you think a lesser aasimar is a good +0 race? Gets some nice stats adjustments, darkvision, and have some resistances.

I believe it's overpowered, since you get all that you mentioned for literally nothing.

Also, as I understand it, you apply it to the base creature like other templates. Thus, you still get all your human features, plus considerable freebies.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-26, 07:07 PM
I believe it's overpowered, since you get all that you mentioned for literally nothing.

Absolutely.

If your DM lets you play with those races, you take them, they are like Flaws, or the Incantatrix PrC. They are just 100%, no questions asked better then the alternatives.


Also, as I understand it, you apply it to the base creature like other templates. Thus, you still get all your human features, plus considerable freebies.

I'm pretty sure the Lesser Planetouched are races just like other Planetouched.

So you don't get any human features.

Tengu
2008-04-26, 07:17 PM
Shortly, the main difference between lesser and normal planetouched is that lesser versions are overpowered LA 0 races, while normal versions are very weak LA +1 races.

The_Snark
2008-04-26, 07:18 PM
Yeah, they're races on their own, rather than templates. There are a few planetouched varieties for other races floating around—Fiend Folio had demon-blooded halflings, for example.

With the potential exception of human (depending on how feat-hungry you are), they're some of the best LA +0 races around.

Frosty
2008-04-26, 08:07 PM
Absolutely.

If your DM lets you play with those races, you take them, they are like Flaws, or the Incantatrix PrC. They are just 100%, no questions asked better then the alternatives.

I dunno. I think some of the flaws are pretty bad. -6 Initiative kind of sucks.

MeklorIlavator
2008-04-26, 08:12 PM
I dunno. I think some of the flaws are pretty bad. -6 Initiative kind of sucks.

Which can be mitigated with a high dex/nerve skitters. Or the ToB maneuver that gives you +20 to initiative. Sure, its not great for every character, but with the right build it doesn't really matter.

AtomicKitKat
2008-04-26, 08:14 PM
I dunno. I think some of the flaws are pretty bad. -6 Initiative kind of sucks.

Well, duh. You only pick Flaws that will never come up(eg, you're a melee monster, so you pick Murky-Eyed, which only affects ranged attack rolls).

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-26, 08:18 PM
Of course, Lesser planeraces are actually STRONGER than normal races.

Reason: Otherworldly, the feat. Finally, you can turn into the dwarven ancestor, a Succubus, or a SOLAR!

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-26, 08:37 PM
I dunno. I think some of the flaws are pretty bad. -6 Initiative kind of sucks.

Well of course you don't take flaws that are actually flaws. That would be silly.:smallwink:

Frosty
2008-04-26, 08:45 PM
My DM disallows us flaws that don't actually impact us negatively in a meaningful way. I feel due to that, it is not rally overpowered.

Where can I find this "Otherworldly" feat?

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-26, 09:24 PM
My DM disallows us flaws that don't actually impact us negatively in a meaningful way. I feel due to that, it is not rally overpowered.

1) Oh my God! Stop saying things like that. It drives me batty. A Planar Shepard isn't overpowered if you choose a non-time plane and never use any good forms. But that doesn't mean anything.

2) Obviously in the context of my statements it is assumed you take flaws that don't hurt you. If the DM gives you Lesser Planetouched at +1 that's not a smart choice either. But we are specifically talking about things that are inherently better then the other options.

Frosty
2008-04-26, 09:38 PM
1) Oh my God! Stop saying things like that. It drives me batty. A Planar Shepard isn't overpowered if you choose a non-time plane and never use any good forms. But that doesn't mean anything.

2) Obviously in the context of my statements it is assumed you take flaws that don't hurt you. If the DM gives you Lesser Planetouched at +1 that's not a smart choice either. But we are specifically talking about things that are inherently better then the other options.

I never presumed to qualify any of your games with the experience of my games. I merely stated that, in my own games, the feats we get feel balanced from the flaws.

I of course agree with you that in the instance that the DM will roll over and let you have flaws that don't imapct you, they're overpowered. But even on page 91 of UA, the book says flaws are supposed to have a meaningful effect. I believe it would not be unreasonable to say that a lot of DMs would in fact houserule it like my DM does.

Rutee
2008-04-26, 09:40 PM
He's right, CoV. Flaws, as written, are in fact, not overpowered because you can take flaws that don't affect you; It says right there that you shouldn't allow them to be taken if they don't have a meaningful negative impact on the character. They're overpowered when relevant flaws that /do/ hurt your character are still not as bad as the Feat you get is good (Which may or may not happen a lot, I don't know.)

SamTheCleric
2008-04-26, 09:42 PM
In case it hasn't been mentioned...

There's a feat for Lesser Planetouched to become Outsiders. Solo knows where to find it... he often touts the strength of Lesser Planetouched using Alter Self.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-26, 10:17 PM
I never presumed to qualify any of your games with the experience of my games. I merely stated that, in my own games, the feats we get feel balanced from the flaws.

You didn't say anything about your games, you said point blank that flaws are not overpowered. (Which they either are or aren't depending on your definition, but they should always be taken when allowed.)


I of course agree with you that in the instance that the DM will roll over and let you have flaws that don't imapct you, they're overpowered. But even on page 91 of UA, the book says flaws are supposed to have a meaningful effect. I believe it would not be unreasonable to say that a lot of DMs would in fact houserule it like my DM does.

It's not "rolling over" to allow flaws that "don't meaningfully effect you."

Non-Combatant/inattentive/ect are equally as valid when they do effect you as when they don't. The point of Flaws is to have extra facets of your character, and they provide that even if they aren't crippling. Vulnerable is a more valid choice for an ubercharger then Non-Combatant, because it makes sense.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-26, 10:20 PM
He's right, CoV. Flaws, as written, are in fact, not overpowered because you can take flaws that don't affect you; It says right there that you shouldn't allow them to be taken if they don't have a meaningful negative impact on the character.

Um? And what's the definition of "meaningful negative impact?" "DM make things up." That's not a balancing factor. Vulnerable has a "meaningful negative impact" on everyone. Anyone can justify taking it based on that wording. Same for Murkey-Eyed/Inattentive/anything else you want.

Rutee
2008-04-26, 10:22 PM
The point of Flaws is to have extra facets of your character,
No, as a matter of fact, that is not the point of flaws. You can have those flaws with or without the mechanical penalty. Not assigning ranks in spot/listen, for instance, is effectively the same thing, past level 2 or 3. Giving you a mechanical penalty is in fact for the explicit purpose of balancing a mechanical bonus; If the penalty doesn't affect you, then it's not balanced.

Or more amusingly..
Really? That's the point of flaws? When you're sitting there going 'Woohoo, free points!'


Um? And what's the definition of "meaningful negative impact?" "DM make things up." That's not a balancing factor. Vulnerable has a "meaningful negative impact" on everyone. Anyone can justify taking it based on that wording. Same for Murkey-Eyed/Inattentive/anything else you want.
The definition would be "A penalty that legitimately makes your character's role more difficult". An easy example is "Inattentive" on the party's scout, since in theory the party scout should be able to find things as well as safely play recon alone.

Jayngfet
2008-04-26, 10:25 PM
what book are lesser planetouched from anyway?

Frosty
2008-04-26, 10:35 PM
what book are lesser planetouched from anyway?

Player's Guide to Faerun I believbe page 190.

Darrin
2008-04-26, 10:41 PM
what book are lesser planetouched from anyway?

Player's Guide to Faerun.

If you want a full-blooded outsider without spending a feat on Otherworldly and without a Level Adjustment, use Racial Class levels and just never take your racial level:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sp/20040213a

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-26, 10:51 PM
Found it. Otherworldly is in the very same PGtF that houses lesser planetouched.

AmberVael
2008-04-26, 11:13 PM
Well, duh. You only pick Flaws that will never come up(eg, you're a melee monster, so you pick Murky-Eyed, which only affects ranged attack rolls).

You're thinking of Shaky, which gives a -2 ranged attack penalty.
Murky-Eyed makes you have to double miss chances from concealment.

Edit: Well, double in terms of rolling twice and taking the worst result.

Cuddly
2008-04-27, 12:47 AM
My DM disallows us flaws that don't actually impact us negatively in a meaningful way. I feel due to that, it is not rally overpowered.


You didn't say anything about your games, you said point blank that flaws are not overpowered. (Which they either are or aren't depending on your definition, but they should always be taken when allowed.)

????????????????????

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-27, 01:13 AM
????????????????????

Yes, he said that his DM disallows it. And used that fact to explain how flaws aren't really overpowered as a game wide statement.

There's a name for that sort of thing.

Frosty
2008-04-27, 01:36 AM
They're not, in my games, and in a lot of the games I've seen. This is due to the overwhelming majority of Dms that I have seen actually enforcing the rule of having the Flaws matter significantly, in the games I've seen. This may or may not apply to your games. I am only reporting what I see.

Take my personal experience as you will, and decide whether it applies or not in your game.

Rutee
2008-04-27, 02:43 AM
There's a name for that sort of thing.

Yes. The DM following the printed guidelines is what we call "Following RAW".

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-27, 11:41 AM
Yes. The DM following the printed guidelines is what we call "Following RAW".

And what about the printed guidelines prevents anyone from taking any of the feats in the Unearthed Arcana?

Actually, point out this supposed part of the Flaws guidelines that says DMs should not allow flaws that don't "meaningfully cripple the character" or whatever phrase that you are making up and is nowhere in the rules.

Rutee
2008-04-27, 11:55 AM
"A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role. That way, a player can't reduce the importance through multiclassing. For instance, a flaw that only affects spellcasters might seem reasonable; but for nonspellcaster characters,the flaw likely proves meaningless."

They screwed up their own design philosophy, but they hardly kept it secret. It's on page 91, the sidebar at the bottom.

Notwithstanding that you defeated your own argument, which I notice you don't care to acknowledge. Really, powergamers irritate me when they don't stick to their guns. "Haha! FLAWS ARE TOTALLY FREE POINTS!" "You're not supposed to take them if they don't hurt." "WTF? They're totally to add facets to my character! Why can't I take it?" I don't care if you powergame, but have the courtesy to not lie so badly to the rest of us.

Nikolai_II
2008-04-27, 12:07 PM
The stats are all the same, except that the LA is 0 and the type is Humanoid rather than Outsider. Which means no, you cannot Alter Self into an outsider as a lesser planetouched.

Slight correction: Type is humanoid, but with outsider subtype. So if outsiders are ever treated worse by spells (unholy blight, I'm looking at you), then you get that bad deal.

Frosty
2008-04-27, 12:19 PM
How does Banishment work with Lesser Planetouched? A Lesser Aasimar is native to the Material Plane. If a Cleric or Wizard casts Banishment on you while you are both on the material plane, where do you go?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-27, 12:25 PM
If you're in another plane, you're back to the Prime material. Else, nothing happens.

Frosty
2008-04-27, 12:32 PM
My confusion stems from the fact that Banishment only states that it forces an extraplanar creature out of the caster's home plane. It doesn't say the destination plane of the subject of the spell.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-27, 12:42 PM
"A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role. That way, a player can't reduce the importance through multiclassing. For instance, a flaw that only affects spellcasters might seem reasonable; but for nonspellcaster characters,the flaw likely proves meaningless."

And did you read that?

1) It's in the section called creating new flaws.

2) It says that all flaws must have a "meaningful mechanical effect" regardless of who takes him.

Depending on how you take that, it either means that no flaw in the universe is actually allowed to anyone "because inattentive doesn't hurt the fighter" or it means that anyone can take any flaw in Unearthed Arcana.

Read it again, it says all flaws must have an effect on all characters, it doesn't give the DM any provisions for declaring that only characters of certain types can take certain flaws. Guess what, Vulnerable either has a meaningful effect on everyone (-1 AC) or absolutely no character in the game can take it. By your interpretation of "meaningful mechanical effect", the party scout can never take inattentive because it doesn't hurt the fighter.

Wanting it doesn't make it true.


Notwithstanding that you defeated your own argument, which I notice you don't care to acknowledge. Really, powergamers irritate me when they don't stick to their guns. "Haha! FLAWS ARE TOTALLY FREE POINTS!" "You're not supposed to take them if they don't hurt." "WTF? They're totally to add facets to my character! Why can't I take it?" I don't care if you powergame, but have the courtesy to not lie so badly to the rest of us.

Wow, I contradict statements that I never made and you just made up? Big surprise.

I'm not lying to anyone, I said flaws are more powerful then not taking them, they are. And seriously can you at least when lying about what I've said say "FREE FEATS!" I'd like it if your strawman at least didn't stray in to GURPS.

My argument is very simple.

1) Taking flaws is stronger then not taking them.
2) There is nothing preventing any character from taking Unearthed Arcana flaws that don't hurt it much, in the rules.

This has nothing to do with motivation for taking flaws, powergaming, or any type of universal statement that "you should always take flaws."

My personal opinion of the reason for allowing flaws, that as a DM are that you want characters with additional features that are negative in nature and reflected mechanically, but also want your players to willfully choose to take those features (since if you only wanted to give them free feats, you could just give them free feats), has no bearing on the above statements.

Cuddly
2008-04-27, 01:29 PM
It's "meaningful effect". Nowhere does it say "meaningful mechanical effect."

Emphasis on meaningful. While -2 AC or whatever may have an effect, and a mechanical one at that, it may not be meaningful, depending on the build of the character. Such as a karmic striking ubercharger.

Cuddly
2008-04-27, 01:33 PM
Yes, he said that his DM disallows it. And used that fact to explain how flaws aren't really overpowered as a game wide statement.

There's a name for that sort of thing.

{Scrubbed}

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-27, 01:42 PM
Emphasis on meaningful. While -2 AC or whatever may have an effect, and a mechanical one at that, it may not be meaningful, depending on the build of the character. Such as a karmic striking ubercharger.

And my point is that if you decide that -2 AC doesn't count as a meaningful effect to an ubercharger, then based on the wording of that stipulation, it means that no character in all of D&D can ever take that flaw.

Either everyone can take a flaw or no one can. There is no prevision for determining whether a flaw has a meaningful effect for a specific character anywhere in the rules.

Rutee
2008-04-27, 01:44 PM
Read it again, it says all flaws must have an effect on all characters, it doesn't give the DM any provisions for declaring that only characters of certain types can take certain flaws. Guess what, Vulnerable either has a meaningful effect on everyone (-1 AC) or absolutely no character in the game can take it. By your interpretation of "meaningful mechanical effect", the party scout can never take inattentive because it doesn't hurt the fighter.
No, but it does directly say that flaws are supposed to have meaningful effects; And yes, the party scout can in fact take Inattentive; It has a meaningful Mechanical effect on the scout. Your Flaw doesn't need to nerf the whole party unless the Feat automatically applies at all times to the party. Just the singular character.


Wow, I contradict statements that I never made and you just made up? Big surprise.



Well of course you don't take flaws that are actually flaws. That would be silly.:smallwink:


The point of Flaws is to have extra facets of your character,
In the words of Jon Stewart, "Don't you know we're recording this stuff?"


And my point is that if you decide that -2 AC doesn't count as a meaningful effect to an ubercharger, then based on the wording of that stipulation, it means that no character in all of D&D can ever take that flaw.

Yeah, but I'm not arguing that their entire design philosophy was even smart. You are the one who treated it as a free feat, and said you should take Flaws that don't affect you; That very clearly was counter to the intent, and the written guidelines, to boot. I'll gladly stray from RAW and say that feats that penalize roles are fine; I wouldn't run a game starting at level 1 anyway, so you'd be hurting far more of your build if you tried to job that, but it isn't straying from RAW at all to say "The flaw needs to actually penalize /you/ if /you/ are to take it".

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-27, 01:47 PM
The names is... you fail at reading?

He stipulated that, given the circumstances of his experience, flaws weren't a big deal.

Maybe you don't understand what the word "due" here means? It's not the money you give to your frat for beer and pledge paddles.

Yes, he said Due to what happens in my game, Flaws are not more powerful in in general. This is a fallacy.

But thanks for the rampant insulting.


No, but it does directly say that flaws are supposed to have meaningful effects; And yes, the party scout can in fact take Inattentive; It has a meaningful Mechanical effect on the scout. Your Flaw doesn't need to nerf the whole party unless the Feat automatically applies at all times to the party. Just the singular character.

Actually, yes it does. It says very specifically that it must penalize all characters. There is absolutely no stipulation for only penalizing that character. It absolutely has to effect every single character in the game or no one at all is allowed to take it. If only penalizes one character then that character can never take it and no other character can ever take it.


In the words of Jon Stewart, "Don't you know we're recording this stuff?"

And yet you never pointed out the part where I said "FREE POINTS!" because I never said it. Because the above statements don't contradict each other or anything else I said, only the part you made up.


but it isn't straying from RAW at all to say "The flaw needs to actually penalize /you/ if /you/ are to take it".

No it's straying from RAW to say that one character can take a flaw and another can't. If any character at all can take a flaw, then any character can take it, regardless of who benefits more from taking it.

Rutee
2008-04-27, 02:05 PM
Actually, yes it does. It says very specifically that it must penalize all characters. There is absolutely no stipulation for only penalizing that character. It absolutely has to effect every single character in the game or no one at all is allowed to take it. If only penalizes one character then that character can never take it and no other character can ever take it.
No, it doesn't say that at all. It says that a Flaw should be able to penalize any character in the game, not that every flaw must penalize every character in the game; Why would Billy Joe's Flaw have to affect Mary Joe's character, when Mary Joe doesn't have the Flaw?

And I will point out that you are in fact backing me up on the more relevant part; That a Flaw /isn't/ supposed to be a free feat, because it /is/ supposed to affect you.


And yet you never pointed out the part where I said "FREE POINTS!" because I never said it. Because the above statements don't contradict each other or anything else I said, only the part you made up.
You were treating Flaws as "They're just supposed to reflect my character" in the second post, and as free points in the first. I would have to say that's a self contradiction.



No it's straying from RAW to say that one character can take a flaw and another can't. If any character at all can take a flaw, then any character can take it, regardless of who benefits more from taking it.

No, it isn't in fact, if you take the design guideline as being more important then the finished product. The Design guidelines was "Flaws are suppose to hurt you worse then the Feat is supposed to help". They did a really bad job at designing flaws that would hurt you better then Feats help you, but the design philosophy is still there.

Cuddly
2008-04-27, 02:21 PM
Yes, he said Due to what happens in my game, Flaws are not more powerful in in general. This is a fallacy.

Uh, where'd he say that? I fail to see any fallacy, since he gave a conditional. Have you looked up the meaning of due yet?

Frosty
2008-04-27, 02:35 PM
Plus, I never said "in general."

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-27, 02:42 PM
No, it doesn't say that at all. It says that a Flaw should be able to penalize any character in the game, not that every flaw must penalize every character in the game; Why would Billy Joe's Flaw have to affect Mary Joe's character, when Mary Joe doesn't have the Flaw?

Because the rules say it does: "A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role." Which means that any flaw that anyone can take must penalize every character. And if it "penalizes" you, then you can take it.

How does the above statement prevent anyone from taking any flaw? I'll say it again.

There is nothing in the rules anywhere to prevent anyone from taking a flaw that penalizes someone else more. Either everyone can take inattentive, or no one can. The Fighter can take it.


And I will point out that you are in fact backing me up on the more relevant part; That a Flaw /isn't/ supposed to be a free feat, because it /is/ supposed to affect you.

I never said that the flaw was a free feat. I said it was better then not taking it, because you just take one that doesn't effect you much.


You were treating Flaws as "They're just supposed to reflect my character" in the second post, and as free points in the first. I would have to say that's a self contradiction.

No, I wasn't treating them as free points in the first one. I was just saying that you don't take flaws that affect the parts you care about.


No, it isn't in fact, if you take the design guideline as being more important then the finished product. The Design guidelines was "Flaws are suppose to hurt you worse then the Feat is supposed to help". They did a really bad job at designing flaws that would hurt you better then Feats help you, but the design philosophy is still there.

No, the design is that a flaw hurts you more then a feat in the same area would help you because, "players always take the flaws that have the least effect on their character and the feats that have the most." Guess where that comes from? Oh right, those design guidelines you love to quote.

Curmudgeon
2008-04-27, 04:00 PM
A good DM should tailor some encounters to educate players on the dangers of excessive min-maxing, with or without flaws.

So a particular PC is a melee monster; maybe they've got the shaky flaw. Regardless, they'll develop a reputation as a melee monster. Then some smart enemies will send a party of archers to attack this PC at long range. Get in a few rounds of full attacks, targeting the melee monster with a few dozen arrows -- then run away. If this PC isn't dead, they'll do it again an hour later when the party crosses another patch of wide-open ground. Repeat until dead. With limited ranged combat capabilities come equivalent vulnerabilities. Having to pay for resurrection, or roll up a new character, should get that message across.

Chosen_of_Vecna
2008-04-27, 04:13 PM
A good DM should tailor some encounters to educate players on the dangers of excessive min-maxing, with or without flaws.

So a particular PC is a melee monster; maybe they've got the shaky flaw. Regardless, they'll develop a reputation as a melee monster. Then some smart enemies will send a party of archers to attack this PC at long range. Get in a few rounds of full attacks, targeting the melee monster with a few dozen arrows -- then run away. If this PC isn't dead, they'll do it again an hour later when the party crosses another patch of wide-open ground. Repeat until dead. With limited ranged combat capabilities come equivalent vulnerabilities. Having to pay for resurrection, or roll up a new character, should get that message across.

You don't have to kill people to make their flaws come up. Just give them occasional instances where it comes up. I don't understand why people feel like the melee focused Fighter who sucks at ranged needs to be punished for it. I mean, if you set up encounters with intelligent enemies who use range, and he outsmarts or outlasts them, then he is a good character. That is what heroes are supposed to do.

Why is it a bad thing for the PCs to do well?

Curmudgeon
2008-04-28, 12:27 AM
Why is it a bad thing for the PCs to do well?
Oh, it's not. It is a bad thing for the PCs to do well all the time.

The DMG suggests that fully 5% of all encounters should be of overwhelming strength. PCs should learn that sometimes the only thing that makes sense is to run away and lick their wounds.

Rutee
2008-04-28, 12:40 AM
Why is it a bad thing for the PCs to do well?

Nobody said it's not. The bad side is the minmaxing of Flaws so as to make them irrelevant, not that PCs do well.


There is nothing in the rules anywhere to prevent anyone from taking a flaw that penalizes someone else more. Either everyone can take inattentive, or no one can. The Fighter can take it.
No, he can not. He can not take Inattentive. Spot/Listen isn't a Class Skill, and he wouldn't care much if they were gimped anyway unless the Fighter was made the spotter. The RAW on this point be damned; They undermined the smart design philosophy of making sure that Flaws weren't taken flippantly, which they themselves state clearly they don't want players doing by the overriding text of "Flaws should hurt characters". The design philosophy that is just as much RAW as the actual rules.


I never said that the flaw was a free feat. I said it was better then not taking it, because you just take one that doesn't effect you much.

Or take a flaw that doesn't affect you at all, which makes you it a free feat..


No, I wasn't treating them as free points in the first one. I was just saying that you don't take flaws that affect the parts you care about.

Yes, as a matter of fact, you /were/. You're trying to disguise it now, but really.. you always take a Feat over a Flaw, because the Flaw is never going to hurt you anywhere near as good as the Feat you pick up isnt' treating it as Free Points?


No, the design is that a flaw hurts you more then a feat in the same area would help you because, "players always take the flaws that have the least effect on their character and the feats that have the most." Guess where that comes from? Oh right, those design guidelines you love to quote.
wow, you did not catch the parts where I flat out said "They then went stupid..", did you?

Tokiko Mima
2008-04-28, 09:45 AM
http://www.stripcreator.com/images/submitted/cop1-1.gif
"All right. Show me where the plane touched you."




There's your difference. :smalltongue: