Is this a serious enough disadvantage to be a flaw? [3.5]

[deuxhero]

Super Drowning Skills
You can't swim, simple as that
Effect
You automatically fail all swim checks and can not have a swim speed.

I mean it highly depends on the setting (It's not that big a deal in the desert, but in say... Miami it is pretty major hit), but it seems equal to a -1 to AC or a penalty to rol you aren't going to make in the first place.

[FishAreWet]

Compare to

Inattentive
You are particularly unaware of your surroundings.

Effect
You take a -4 penalty on Listen checks and Spot checks.

[Xefas]

Compare to

Considering that you'll probably have a party member with maxed spot and listen that will just tell everyone if they see or hear something interesting, I don't find -4 Spot/Listen to one person too terribly bad.

To contrive a situation where you'd be gimped by a single party member not hearing/seeing something, you could just as well contrive something with water.

I don't use flaws, by the way. I think they're a sub-par solution to a few problems that can be solved in much better ways. But compared to other flaws, this one seems on the same level for all practical reasons.

[FlamingKobold]

I like the idea of a super-epic, level 40 paladin that just can't swim. It makes me smile, actually. If he doesn't have some sort of teleporting ability or the silent spell feat, he will drown. That's kind of unfortunate.

Yeah, this is a much bigger penalty than most other flaws. If it was just a straight up -10, it'd probably be more than sufficient.

[Wannabehero]

Automatic fail in all swim checks seems intensely harsh, beyond flaw.

Perhaps -4 to all swim checks and your character is Frightened while in water greater than knee-depth until succeeding a DC 18 Will save, then he is Shaken. Seems more appropriate to me.

[FishAreWet]

Considering that you'll probably have a party member with maxed spot and listen that will just tell everyone if they see or hear something interesting, I don't find -4 Spot/Listen to one person too terribly bad.

To contrive a situation where you'd be gimped by a single party member not hearing/seeing something, you could just as well contrive something with water.

I don't use flaws, by the way. I think they're a sub-par solution to a few problems that can be solved in much better ways. But compared to other flaws, this one seems on the same level for all practical reasons.

Someone can carry you in the water.

[Eternal Drifter]

I'd say this is only a flaw if the campaign is water heavy. Can you imagine a fighter taking this flaw in the desert, and he never leaves the desert? That's a feat for free!

[Lysander]

The problem with the flaw is it isn't a flaw. Those are usually penalties. This is either no problem at all or total unavoidable death.

I agree with just making it a -10 penalty and making them frightened in water. Plus require a will save to ever willingly enter a deep body of water.

[Melayl]

I agree with just making it a -10 penalty and making them frightened in water. Plus require a will save to ever willingly enter a deep body of water.

I resemble that remark (in all seriousness). I think this is more than sufficient.

[DeltaEmil]

Paladins can't swim anyway, even if they're epic. They need their not-at-all-epic wizard and cleric friends to walk or at least not drown in a puddle. Fighters can't either, of course.
2 skill-points for anything else than intimidate and jump, or sense motive and ride in the case of the paladin, aren't really going to be put anywhere else.

[Lappy9000]

I agree with just making it a -10 penalty and making them frightened in water. Plus require a will save to ever willingly enter a deep body of water.

Yeah, that looks pretty good. Don't forget to specify the 'deep' part. Something actually potentially threatening, like water deeper than they are tall.

[Jack of Spades]

I'd say this is only a flaw if the campaign is water heavy. Can you imagine a fighter taking this flaw in the desert, and he never leaves the desert? That's a feat for free!

The fact is, any DM will generally say, "That's not a flaw in this campaign" and be done with the debate if that is the case.

Yeah, that looks pretty good. Don't forget to specify the 'deep' part. Something actually potentially threatening, like water deeper than they are tall.

I'd say that if we're going the fear angle, make it chest-deep. That's when instinctive panic starts to set in. Possibly they are shaken at chest-deep, frightened if they can't touch the bottom while keeping their head above the water.

[Zeta Kai]

I'd say this is only a flaw if the campaign is water heavy. Can you imagine a fighter taking this flaw in the desert, and he never leaves the desert? That's a feat for free!

Congratulations, you've discovered the munchkin's secret of flaw-cheese.

Also, a -10 penalty is more than sufficient. It's not like anyone is gonna put ranks in Swim to compensate for a -10 penalty, so they'll be at the mercy of their Strength score no matter what. You get the same basic result, but without the absolute, which would bother most people (like those above).

[Lord Loss]

I agree with Zeta. Any more than -10 is useless, and just means that the DM including a swim in adventures = you dying. In the meantime, him not including it = Munchkiny Fun.

[herbe]

agreed. Its similar to get -10 at spellcraft. So pc with this flaw will be melee-type instead of wizard or socerer.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Considering that you'll probably have a party member with maxed spot and listen that will just tell everyone if they see or hear something interesting, I don't find -4 Spot/Listen to one person too terribly bad.

When an encounter begins, only those aware of the enemy get to act in the surprise round sure your friend can say look out monster, but by then the attack has already begun. I've seen guys with inattentive end up with negative spot checks and end up missing the obvious.

[DragoonWraith]

Reminds me of Unbreakable.

[Zeta Kai]

Reminds me of Unbreakable.

Oh yeah, I remember that movie. Good film, although it's mostly been overshadowed by The Sixth Sense & Shaymalan's later reputation. Yeah, IIRC, Bruce Willis' super-dense bones were extremely resistant to fractures, but they also made him sink like a stone in the water. That would make for a cool template in D&D.

[Corporate M]

Super Drowning Skills
You can't swim, simple as that
Effect
You automatically fail all swim checks and can not have a swim speed.

I mean it highly depends on the setting (It's not that big a deal in the desert, but in say... Miami it is pretty major hit), but it seems equal to a -1 to AC or a penalty to rol you aren't going to make in the first place.

You've been watching one piece.

But yes, I'd so much as say that even transcends alot of other flaws. As it basically puts you in situational dangers. I mean hell, in One Piece such a flaw gave Luffy several abilities that resemble tome of battle manuevers.

That'd be awesome a one piece campaign where there are no spellcasters, just people who can cast spells by trading spell power for flaws. Take the blindness flaw, and can make other people blind at will. Maybe even with a unique effect that they go blind, and you regain your eyesight up untill you "give them back" their eyesight but you go blind again. Essentially it would mean you could only blind one person at a time.

[Studoku]

I'd agree with the desert campaign comments, but I've seen a player almost drown during a desert campaign.

[Temotei]

I'd agree with the desert campaign comments, but I've seen a player almost drown during a desert campaign.

Oasis or stupidity?

[Milskidasith]

Oasis or stupidity?

Or a hostile spellcaster casting mass drown on the party.

Because there's nothing quite like giving somebody water when they are thirstiest... directly into their lungs.

[Temotei]

Because there's nothing quite like giving somebody water when they are thirstiest... directly into their lungs.

True dat.