Flaws and Traits...

[Athelian]

Alright, now, I know I will sound like a complete and utter fool, but I would prefer that than remain uneducated about this...

Traits and Flaws. What are they, exactly? From what I've gleaned from these boards, flaws are negative things you can take, like feats, and... You get a bonus feat by taking it? And what about traits? do you take that in place of a feat?

I seek general enlightenment, =P

Which book were these presented in, what are the exact rules for both, ect.?

[Starsinger]

Unearthed Arcana. Flaws give you a penalty, in exchange for a feat, whereas Traits are balanced things that give you a penalty and a bonus, and I think you just can take one trait. Something like -2 Spot checks +2 search checks... actually I think that is one verbatum. You can find them in the SRD though. http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/varian...Characters.htm

[melchizedek]

They are in Unearthed Arcana. Flaws give a significant penalty. You can have up to two and each allows you to take an additional feat.

Traits include a somewhat related benefit and penalty. One gives a bonus to Ride checks and a penalty to handle animal checks.

[Townopolis]

Traits and Flaws were presented in Unearthed Arcana. I believe you can take up to 2 traits at 1st level, and more later on in your career. Traits are supposed to balance themselves out, and taking them is purely optional.

Same deal with Flaws, up to 2 at first level, more later on if your DM allows it. Flaws have a purely negative effect on your character, so you get a bonus feat for each one you take.

[Athelian]

Thank you all, so much.

It's been driving me insane.

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

Nothing like taking "Non-combatant" and "Vulnerable" for an archer type... hehe hehe

[Fax Celestis]

Nothing like taking "Non-combatant" and "Vulnerable" for an archer type... hehe hehe

Or "Shaky" and "Feeble" for a Druid.

[Townopolis]

As you can see above me, there are various reasons many DMs don't allow flaws.

[random11]

As you can see above me, there are various reasons many DMs don't allow flaws.

On the other hand, it's not a bad RPG concept.
The flaws give you very good reasons why the character chose this path over another. So unless every character has almost identical flaws, it's actually a good thing.

Furthermore, there are always ways of reminding players of their flaws...

[Macrovore]

Or "Shaky" and "Feeble" for a Druid.

I'm partial to "Forlorn" and "Noncombatant" for my wizards.

[Saph]

As you can see above me, there are various reasons many DMs don't allow flaws.

Yeah, like me. As written, there's nothing to stop players from picking a flaw that will have virtually no impact on their character. Like a melee-intensive barbarian taking Shaky, or a back-line spellcaster taking Noncombatant. Even players who don't usually munchkin are going to be tempted when you offer them a feat in exchange.

- Saph

[Caelestion]

I have to admit to munchkinning them as well once. During a one-shot, I took Frail and Feeble for my 11th-level Conjurer who had become a lich when he was in his 40s and who was now in his early 70s. I think he had the vast total of 14 hp when alive and 90-odd when undead...

[ClericofPhwarrr]

[Scrubbed. There's some question about the legality of that, and we'd rather avoid any copyright imbroglio. Thanks.]

[Caelestion]

Awesome link! Thanks CoP :)

[melchizedek]

The justification given in the books is that flaws have a far greater impact then feats have a positive impact. You wouldn't complain if someone took a feat that worked great for their character. Flaws have a fairly significant negative effect. I think shaky is a good example here. Even with a front-line barbarian, it's fairly likely he's going to need to make a few ranged attacks. It won't be his primary purpose, but the flaw will have a significant negative impact.

[Fourth Tempter]

Yeah, like me. As written, there's nothing to stop players from picking a flaw that will have virtually no impact on their character. Like a melee-intensive barbarian taking Shaky, or a back-line spellcaster taking Noncombatant. Even players who don't usually munchkin are going to be tempted when you offer them a feat in exchange.

- Saph

Pardon? "Munchkin"? How is this any different from placing a warrior's high statistics in Strength and Constitution and his low statistic in Charisma?

[Inyssius Tor]

Think of it more like this: You have an 18 in STR, and an 8 in CHA. Then, your DM offers you the ability to swap points of CHA and STR on a one-to-one basis.

[Piccamo]

Everyone knows if you play to your strengths you can't roleplay well. Thats why the bard with a missing leg and cut vocal chords will always be a "better" character than a wizard who can bend reality.

[Fax Celestis]

Pardon? "Munchkin"? How is this any different from placing a warrior's high statistics in Strength and Constitution and his low statistic in Charisma?

Exactly. Maybe his shakyness is the exact reason he's a melee fighter. Comes from a long line of excellent archers, but he's the family black sheep because he can't seem to hold a bow straight, so he decided to prove that he can be juast as effective a combattant (or hunter) as his archer family--and as such, is now adventuring.

Without flaws, there's no mechanical way to display that except with a poor Dexterity--which is something that a melee combattant needs for defensive and initiative reasons. Taking the Flaw would allow the player to represent a particular form of inability that would improve their RP potential.

[Annarrkkii]

I agree completely with Fax. That right there should be the rules.

It's when you add in the extra feat that things get dumb. I have no problem with characters having flaws. I just won't let them get bonus feats for them. The world doesn't work that way. Just 'cause you can't shoot a bow well or see well in the fog, doesn't mean you CAN have 3 feats at first level.

[Fax Celestis]

I agree completely with Fax. That right there should be the rules.

It's when you add in the extra feat that things get dumb. I have no problem with characters having flaws. I just won't let them get bonus feats for them. The world doesn't work that way. Just 'cause you can't shoot a bow well or see well in the fog, doesn't mean you CAN have 3 feats at first level.

So what would you give instead for the flaw? Anything? I'd personally allow a bonus feat, but to a limited selection of feats (probably the +2/+2 skills feats, and maybe Skill Focus).

[melchizedek]

I think you should get a feat. It seems to me that the penalty is severe enough to compensate it, but I can understand why you wouldn't allow them. I think the flaws aren't really broken except in builds optimized to do one thing. A character who actually has to play a campaign is going to take significant penalties from any flaw he/she takes.

[tarbrush]

I like the shadowrun system, where you have flaws worth a certain amount of points and a related set of, whatchamacallit, bonuses. All of them were interesting and unusual things that you couldn't acquire elsewhere in character creation (photographic memory and drug addicitions for instance).

I always thought they were more interesting (both mechanically and fluffy) that the somewhat vanilla D&D flaws.

(Though I use the D&D flaws when given the choice. I'm a sucker for cheap power)

[Annarrkkii]

Flaws are explained as RP tools. And then they go and add mechanical benefits. Were I to allow something in return for a flaw, it might be a +2/+2 skill feat, like you selected, but then the things just start looking like traits, which I prefer anyway.

[LotharBot]

My DM ruling is that if you take a flaw and bonus feat, you have to explain why they're related and why they actually result in a balanced character.

For example, one build involved a Ranger taking shaky (-2 to ranged attacks) and improved initiative. Everyone else in the family just shot at the goblins at range, but he had to rely on being quicker than them. Reasonably balanced, since shaky really does limit the options of a ranger type.

The wizard taking noncombatant and vulnerable for a couple spellcasting feats? Not so much balanced.

[The_Werebear]

^

That is how I do it.

For example, I did a Bard with the flaw Vulnerable for the feat Improved Initiative. I justified it as "He grew up on a boat, where the dominant style of combat was to hit hard and fast, and kill your foe before he can swing at you.

For a dwarven barbarian, I took Vulnerable in exchange for track. He was too wild and uncontrolled for the Dwarven Army rank and file, so spent his time wandering around in cave systems learning to track. Shaky might have also been good for him, as he is too twitchy and violent to have the patience or the ability to properly aim a weapon before pulling the trigger. He is more likely to beat someone with a crossbow than shoot them.

[Matthew]

Indeed, Flaws and Traits and such have been around for a long time in one form or another. Like any other aspect of mechanics they can be used responsibly and they can also be abused, it just depends on the group.

[SpiderBrigade]

The reason taking a flaw to get a feat is (somewhat) different from boosting some stats at the expense of others is that feats (like spells and many other aspects of D&D) get more powerful the more you have, and often in a nonlinear fashion.

For instance a fighter with Int 8 and Str 12 is a bit better at smashing (and dumber) than one with 2 10s. He's better at the thing that's important to his character concept (smashing) while taking a penalty to something he doesn't care about that much (being smart). And that's okay.

But 2 bonus feats is a lot different from 2 attribute points. Feat combos are one of the main methods of powergaming, second to spell combos. Getting the chance to do more combos, earlier, is a LOT better than moving your ability scores around. I'll leave it to the real crunch-heads on the board to come up with some nice examples of things you could break with bonus feats.

Now, this wouldn't apply as muchif the penalties (taking 2 flaws) were serious. But it's very easy to pick ones that will never apply to you. Shaky for a melee fighter is the most glaring, but many can be avoided or mitigated without too much effort.

Of course not ALL uses of flaws are broken, obviously. The examples given by posters above are exactly how they SHOULD be used. Lump the bonus feat together with the drawback, as a means to flesh out your character's nature with the mechanics. That's good.

What's less good is something like "oh yeah, my wizard is really Shaky because of a disease he had, and he's very Noncombatant as well because he considers physical conflict uncivilized. Oh, and I'm taking Maximise Spell and Quicken Spell as bonus feats." What? The connection is tenuous if it exists at all.

I would probably ALLOW flaws to be used, but only with approval.

[The_Werebear]

Oh, idea for drawing those feats and flaws.

1) Shaky- Quicken Spell: He is twitchy still because of a childhood disease. When he learned to use magic, he had to cast more quickly than normal to finish the spell before a spasm. Mostly, his quicker casting has only a fluff effect, except he has mastered the technique of getting a spell out superfast, a word and gesture before a small tremor.

2) Noncombatant and Maximize: He was always taught that Melee combat was uncivilized, and didn't bother to practice. Instead, he learned to supercharge spells so that it only took one of them to knock down a charging foe before it got in range to be uncivilized with his body and a pointy metal object.

[ocato]

Oh, idea for drawing those feats and flaws.

1) Shaky- Quicken Spell: He is twitchy still because of a childhood disease. When he learned to use magic, he had to cast more quickly than normal to finish the spell before a spasm. Mostly, his quicker casting has only a fluff effect, except he has mastered the technique of getting a spell out superfast, a word and gesture before a small tremor.

2) Noncombatant and Maximize: He was always taught that Melee combat was uncivilized, and didn't bother to practice. Instead, he learned to supercharge spells so that it only took one of them to knock down a charging foe before it got in range to be uncivilized with his body and a pointy metal object.

Well said.

I like flaws, but am wary of them, if that makes sense. I enjoy the extra feats and I believe the system can be used fairly. An archer type who picks up Point Blank and Precise shots at L1 and trades in Noncombatant and Vulnerable, for example. Think of Paris from the Iliad (or at least the movie version, Troy) He was just plain bad with a sword. Came from not being trained at an early age and a general lack of interest. He's not good at fighting up close or defending himself, so he's changed his methods to be a master of fighting far away where he isn't required to defend himself as much. That makes sense to me. You just have to enforce good role-play at the table. If the RP isn't there, the flaws go bye-bye. You just have to put your foot down and call the shots as DM.