View Full Version : Un-Stupid-fying Flaws

2008-05-06, 04:19 PM
Flaws, a la Unearthed Arcana, as we know them are broken. Ok, for those of you who are still reading, I have an idea of how we can include them without F*$%ing game balance entirely. How about if the flaw(s) actually hinder(s) you, you get a (single) use of the feat(s) to which it/they is/are linked. We'll call these "flaw points" for now. (i.e., human fighter decides that the feats he'll start with are Power Attack, Combat Expertise, and Improved Trip. He feels that he should be rather crappy at shooting, since he trained mostly with melee weapons, so he takes the flaw "shaky." He then decides that while blind-fight would be nice to have, it's pretty darn situational, so he links his flaws to it. He then looks at "Weak-Willed." His character gives in to temptation a lot, so he does too and takes this one. He goes with Improved Bull Rush, for much the same reason as with Blind-Fight.) Now let's say he needs a 14 to hit this goblin with his bow. He shoots, and gets a total of 12. Crap. A miss. But it would have been a hit, if not for his flaw. He then gets a single "flaw point" which he can use as a free action to gain either Blind-Fight or Improved Bull Rush for one round.

What do the Playgrounders think? It seems to me that it gives you a little something extra, both from a mechanical and an RP perspective, without being munchkinry. It also has the added effect of introducing little-seen feats back into the game, at least in a small way. IDK, i kinda like it. Comments, Questions, Suggestions, Derisive And/Or Condescending Sarcasm?

Baron Corm
2008-05-06, 04:31 PM
Sounds good to me, though perhaps make it once per day. Using a feat once in your entire life is not worth lowering your Will saves. Once per day I think keeps it balanced between ridiculously worth it and ridiculously not worth it.

2008-05-06, 04:32 PM
The problem is.. Why would a character use his/her flaw? Put your best foot forward and all that jazz, so why not just charge said hobgoblin? Unless the DM explicitly puts him/her in a situation where their flaw matters, then they might use their flaw. However, it's much more efficient to just not have a flaw than a situational feat.

Baron Corm
2008-05-06, 04:36 PM
Unless the DM explicitly puts him/her in a situation where their flaw matters, then they might use their flaw.

It is the job of the DM to do things like that :smallsmile:

Not too much of course, but enough so that the flaw matters. It actually can make for some good drama.

2008-05-06, 04:42 PM
Not clear enough, sorry. Two clarifications:

The flaws are always in effect. You only get a flaw point when the flaw makes a difference (i.e. when you miss 10% of your ranged attacks, in the case of Shaky).
You only get to use the feat for one round per flaw point you spend.

Thinking it over again, maybe I should cap the number of flaw points you can gain, say something like six at any one time?

2008-05-06, 04:46 PM
Alternately, maybe the DM could decide, once per day (before any related rolls are made), when your flaw happens, and then the payer decides, once per day (before any related rolls are made), when to use the feat? It would be simpler, but I don't think it's as fair, necessarily.

The Necroswanso
2008-05-06, 05:08 PM
I like the idea, it makes the player more creative as well as DM.

2008-05-06, 05:32 PM
If you think Flaws are broken, then why are you giving them more things they can do?

Not to mention I can easily find ways to break this system even further. Like for the Shaky feat, I can shoot at a tree and when I miss due to the flaw, I gain a flaw point that I can use in a better time. I could also do this with subdual arrows and a party member instead.

Also why would I want to use a flaw unless I had to?

2008-05-06, 06:09 PM
over alli really don't think that this is the right answer. in my experience, flaws are only game-threatening (i wouldn't even call them breaking), if it isn't a common part of the system. if the 8-person party has only one or two pc's with flaws, that unbalances things a bit--generally at lower levels--but if the whole party, and the npc's and monsters have them, i've never seen much discord.

so i would just say all or nothing.

Baron Corm
2008-05-06, 06:12 PM
I don't really like that idea, for the shooting at a tree reason, and also because it makes less sense. I believe the reason for giving feats for flaws is because the character has more time to focus on other areas. It's not like... I shot an orc and was bad at it, so now I can fight well in darkness.

2008-05-06, 09:33 PM
So, I just tie my flaws to feats like Dodge which I only take as prereqs. Now what?

2008-05-06, 09:40 PM
So, I just tie my flaws to feats like Dodge which I only take as prereqs. Now what?

No flaw-tied feat active: no advanced feat/PrCs for you! I am DM god, mewl in terror players! [/rawr]

2008-05-07, 11:17 AM
Obviously the game is still in control of the DM here, so if you shoot at a tree, that would do nothing for you. Look at the Fatespinner's "spin fate" ability for clarification. Also, instead of a feat, what if your flaws, when they actually made a difference, as above, simply give you a luck reroll, that you must use that day? Now that I think I like better. Like karma. This also eliminates the ability to blind-fight, but only when you miss the orc. I hadn't really thought of how little sense that made. Also, Hadrian, that was a bit non-constructive. Notice how that part of the OP is crossed out. It's for a reason.