Cheesy Flaws (3.5)

[TempusCCK]

So, I was looking through the Suck Where No One Has Sucked Before thread and saw this:

Noncombatant
You are relatively inept at melee combat.
Effect
You take a -2 penalty on all melee attack rolls.

And I thought "wow, what a big pile of stinky gouda." That's just asking to give Wizards yet another awesome bonus to their character for little to no detriment. With that feat they can grab any number of cheesy metamagic feats...

so in response, I thought of this:

Magically Inept
You stink at casting spells.
Effect
You take a -2 penalty to caster level on any spell you cast, as well, you take a -2 to any Use Magic Device checks.

Great for fighters, terrible for any other type of magic user. Bam, welcome to Freefeatsville Melee characters, the magic users are over by the pool and help yourself to the minibar.

What other flaws and traits are just cheesy or imbalanced beyond all belief? And how would you fix them in game?

[kamikasei]

There're "noncombatant" and "shaky" for melee and ranged penalties, respectively. Indeed, they're cheesily useful if your build never needs to rely on one type or the other.

The thing that always has to be remembered is that flaws are specifically subject to DM's approval to ensure that they do actually meaningfully penalize your character in line with the benefit you gain. Indeed, they are better thought of as ways to mechanically represent a real handicap that your character has to overcome, which come with a free bonus to keep you balanced.

[KIDS]

Vulnerable: -1 AC

My first choice for any occasion that I need extra feats either for anything cheesy or fluffy both. Yes, AC is useful to everyone. But when you consider that it becomes obsolete really fast, as well as being easy to get if you go that route, it's nothing!

Taunt the monsters: "You have nothing, nothing to threathen me with, nothing to do with my -1 AC!"

Also, Feeble. What's a -2 penalty to all physical skill checks to a caster? Only -2 Concentration, hardly anyone cares about that.

[Jack_Simth]

Most of the flaws are cheesy in one way or another (except, perhaps, the reduced HP one and the reduced saves ones).

After all, what do people in real life that have significant handicaps do?

Why, they do things where the handicap isn't nearly as significant (the person who has trouble walking gets a desk job, the person who has trouble with math finds a job where math isn't required, the person with poor english skills either gets a job on a help line or finds a job where you don't normally interact with customers, et cetera), or find things that mitigate or eliminate the handicap (prosthetic limbs, glasses, seeing eye dogs, and so on).

The Druid who's Slow, but rides everywhere, for instance. The Wizard who's Forlorn... but doesn't like familiars to begin with. The Vow of Poverty character who's Free Sprited (increased penalties for carrying stuff, which he can't really have anyway), and so on.

[AmberVael]

Yeah, generally if Flaws are allowed it's just going to boost party strength and possibly add flavor if the players work with the flaws through roleplay.

[Stupendous_Man]

Chicken-Infested.

[Saph]

Every flaw use I've witnessed has been cheesy. Whenever I've seen them used, it's been exactly the way already described - a min-maxing exercise designed to get powerful bonus feats (metamagic, say) for no significant cost (by taking a penalty to something completely irrelevant).

- Saph

[holywhippet]

Does the noncombatant flaw affect touch based attacked? If so, that could be a problem for a wizard/sorcerer.

[Starsinger]

Does the noncombatant flaw affect touch based attacked? If so, that could be a problem for a wizard/sorcerer.

Touch AC tends to be so stupid low that even a -2 penalty isn't that bad.


Every flaw use I've witnessed has been cheesy. Whenever I've seen them used, it's been exactly the way already described - a min-maxing exercise designed to get powerful bonus feats (metamagic, say) for no significant cost (by taking a penalty to something completely irrelevant).

- Saph

That seems to be their purpose innit?

[SoD]

Magically Inept
You stink at casting spells.
Effect
You take a -2 penalty to caster level on any spell you cast, as well, you take a negative -2 to any Use Magic Device checks.

You do realise that a negative -2 is the same a +2, right? I'm assuming you didn't mean it like that.

But anyway, a cheesy flaw; for dragonfire adepts; non-combatant and shaky. "Oh noes, I take -2 to melee and ranged attacks! What can I do? I know...I'll just breate fire instead."

[Stupendous_Man]

You do realise that a negative -2 is the same a +2, right?

Only mathematically speaking.

[SoD]

Only mathematically speaking.

So what else could it mean?

[Jack_Simth]

So what else could it mean?
In quite a lot of languages, a double negative isn't a positive - it's a more emphatic negative.

[Stupendous_Man]

In quite a lot of languages, a double negative isn't a positive - it's a more emphatic negative.
I agree with your doubleplus good statement.

[Lemur]

In quite a lot of languages, a double negative isn't a positive - it's a more emphatic negative.

Including a fair amount of English dialects as well.

[herrhauptmann]

I ain't tell you nothing!:smalltongue:

[SoD]

In quite a lot of languages, a double negative isn't a positive - it's a more emphatic negative.

However, we're talking in english. And mathematical english, so the statement by herrhauptmann, although correct, isn't quite within the topic. Mind you tecnically, we've hijacked this thread for a language debate which wasn't in the original topic, so we're all as bad as each other, eh?

[Drammel]

I can see how Unreactive could be beneficial. Take it as a rogue and let your flank buddies get into position before you move. The main problem with flaws is that they don't scale. -1 AC means a lot more at level 1 than at level 20 for example.

[RS14]

I can see how Unreactive could be beneficial. Take it as a rogue and let your flank buddies get into position before you move.

Nah, you can always choose to delay. Besides, as a rogue it is very beneficial to be able to get into combat while your opponents are still flat-footed.

[Arbitrarity]

I can see how Unreactive could be beneficial. Take it as a rogue and let your flank buddies get into position before you move. The main problem with flaws is that they don't scale. -1 AC means a lot more at level 1 than at level 20 for example.

Ooor... delay your turn. I'd rather go first and have the option of going later than just going later.

[icefractal]

Well, Murky-Eyed has got to be the cheddar of cheesy flaws - moderate but not huge penalty to something that happens rarely - and might not even apply to some characters? I've seen people using it quite a bit.

As for balancing flaws, I'm not sure it's practical under the current setup - there aren't too many things which are equally a hazard to all character types. I have seen a fairly elegant solution, which was that you could pick pretty much any flaw, but instead of getting a feat, you got an action point every time your flaw was a significant hinderance to you.

[Rinzy]

I allowed flaws with approval in the game Im currently running. The party wizard took the one that gives a -2 to spot and listen checks (Inattentive, if I remember correctly), so in the back of my mind I dsignated him as my 'Make a spot check' target for pretty much everything. It's become a running joke, and is very amusing. Sometimes I ask him to make one for no reason, just to keep everyone on their toes.

Flaws are pretty cheesy, though. Since they've added some interesting RP flavor to our game without too much trouble elsewhere, I'll probably allow them next time but also require them to let me pick one of them. My group tends to be pretty cool about not exploiting cheese, but this one seems to be pretty tempting.

[Kizara]

I agree with your doubleplus good statement.

Two times twice!

[detrevnisisiht]

I agree with your doubleplus good statement.
I seem to think it was a very ungood statement.....off to Doublethink my mind into the gutter.

[Flickerdart]

It's funny because Flaws are so much better than Traits. Reckless: -1 AC, +2 Init. Vulnerable and Improved Initiative? Twice the benefit, same penalty.

[monty]

I can see how Unreactive could be beneficial. Take it as a rogue and let your flank buddies get into position before you move. The main problem with flaws is that they don't scale. -1 AC means a lot more at level 1 than at level 20 for example.

On the other hand, -1 AC doesn't mean much when my barbarian already has AC 5 at level 1 (long story). At that point, everything that's a threat will already be hitting on a 2 anyway.

[AslanCross]

I found flaws so cheesy that even in the campaign I'm playing (Eyes of the Lich Queen), I passed despite the DM allowing me to take two flaws.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Don't forget the one that requires you to make a Perform check to cast a spell. DC 10+Spell Level. On a Bard, that's makeable on a 1 at first level(4(ranks)+4(Cha)+2(masterwork instrument)). It only gets easier as you level up.

[Curmudgeon]

Flaws are invitations to DMs to make the player regret their choices. Noncombatant? Add lots of cover and/or concealment, so touch attack spells would be useful. Shaky? Have encounters start at great range, so missile attacks are the best choice. Feeble? Use CON damage in attacks, from a variety of sources: Poison or Dehydrate spell, Fanged Ring, poisoned arrows, & c. Spellcasters who can't succeed at Concentration checks will suffer. Vulnerable is self-fulfilling; a lower AC statistically always leads to more damage and higher risk of death. Murky-Eyed? Make concealment common, and 20% miss chance becomes 36%, or 50% becomes 75%.

As a DM I encourage my players to take flaws. I always smile evilly when I extend this invitation. :redcloak:

[JellyPooga]

Flaws aren't inherently cheesy any more than a Batman Wizard or CoDzilla is cheesy...sure they're abusable if that's the way you roll (role?), but that's your perogative as a player to decide.

For myself, I like the idea of flaws and if I do use them I tend to take ones that will mean something to that character, or the bonus feat I get from taking the flaw will go towards minimising the detrimental effect of the flaw (e.g. one character I created had the Weak-Willed flaw and took Cold-Iron Tracery as the bonus feat...effectively exchanging 2 points of Will Save for the ability to overcome DR/Cold Iron).

[KIDS]

However, if you look at it that feats in D&D, while imbalanced, are also a source of distinguishing your character, there are pardons for flaws. Feats are terribly scarce, and if you look at them as sources of cool things for your character as they suggest, then you aren't going to do many cool things in your career.

For example, I wanted to play an elven, charisma based caster who would be a priestess of the goddess of love and have many elemental spells with some healing. In the end, I chose an Elf Sorcerer with Arcane Disciple (Healing). However, since Sorcerers don't have Knowledge (Religion) as a class skill, there was no way to get 4 ranks as a prerequisite, and elves only get one feat.
So I took a flaw for Educated (all knowledge skills are class skills) and got my Arcane Disciple, which, retrospectively looking, didn't make me more powerful nor cheesy, but tremendously happy and I enjoyed playing that character for years.

Just one bright story :)