Check Required Flaw
- Thread starter Rystil Arden
- Start date
Rystil Arden
First Post
I could actually see a possibility for Diplomacy for Regenerate--if the character has some sort of sentient and unfriendly power source trapped inside, like Naruto's Nine-Tailed Fox in the namesake show, it may be possible that the character has to negotiate with the demon/source thingy to get it to save him "Come on! I know you have the power to regenerate this body, and if I die, you die!"Bront said:
That said, it would have to be very well thought-out, rather than just something tacked on--that example I gave adds interesting flavour and gives fun plot hooks and possible complications.
Hand of Vecna
First Post
UP = Ultimate Power
Some more questions about the check required flaw which have occurred to me.
1: How does check required stack with containers. For example a character has a sustained alternate form with the check required flaw, presumably this would imply the check is made when the character changes form.
However the character might have only two powers in that form, Force field 10 and Strike 10, if they had been bought separately strike would require a dc20 check every time it was used. However because it has been stacked with something else there is only one check and the dc is 14. That just seems wrong to me.)
2: How does the flaw work with a power which has the affects others extra. For example you might have: Invisibility(Check required - stealth) but if you had affects others on then who should be making the check, the character granting the power, or the character using the power. This seems to vary with descriptors, in some cases it seems to make sense for the character using the power to be making the check, (especially as that is the character taking the action). However in other cases it seems sensible for the character granting the power to be the one making the check.
As a note it seems to be the case that most flaws when applied to affects others powers would affect the user of the power not the granter. eg Passive concealment would surely end when the user attacked not when the granter attacked. Distracting Flight would presumably mean the user lost their dodge bonus not the granter.
1: How does check required stack with containers. For example a character has a sustained alternate form with the check required flaw, presumably this would imply the check is made when the character changes form.
However the character might have only two powers in that form, Force field 10 and Strike 10, if they had been bought separately strike would require a dc20 check every time it was used. However because it has been stacked with something else there is only one check and the dc is 14. That just seems wrong to me.)
2: How does the flaw work with a power which has the affects others extra. For example you might have: Invisibility(Check required - stealth) but if you had affects others on then who should be making the check, the character granting the power, or the character using the power. This seems to vary with descriptors, in some cases it seems to make sense for the character using the power to be making the check, (especially as that is the character taking the action). However in other cases it seems sensible for the character granting the power to be the one making the check.
As a note it seems to be the case that most flaws when applied to affects others powers would affect the user of the power not the granter. eg Passive concealment would surely end when the user attacked not when the granter attacked. Distracting Flight would presumably mean the user lost their dodge bonus not the granter.
Bront
The man with the probe
1) The check is to get into the alternate form. All powers in it are free from then on. I don't see a huge problem with this.
2) Checks are made by the origionator. Heal effects others, but why should the target need to make a check? Same with Invisible effecting others. The others aren't the ones who are creating the effect.
2) Checks are made by the origionator. Heal effects others, but why should the target need to make a check? Same with Invisible effecting others. The others aren't the ones who are creating the effect.
NO
I just don't like this. It seems way to abusable to me, if you max the skill it is a good example of a flaw which has no downside, (Which are explicitly excluded as non-flaws in the rules) If you don't max the skill then it is either completely terrible or you might as well just take the unreliable 50% flaw.
For theme I think taking unreliable instead and justifying it as a skill check would cover it. (Yes it means that all ranks have the same chance of failure, and skill drains have no effect but how often is that going to happen.)
[Sblock]Plus it seems to have the same abusebility as the action flaw on containers. Make the check once and you can have all the benefits until you next become unconscious. I was surprised to see there is no discussion of action flaw abuse here which I guess shows that most players are sensible so it has not had need to come up yet.[/sblock]
I just don't like this. It seems way to abusable to me, if you max the skill it is a good example of a flaw which has no downside, (Which are explicitly excluded as non-flaws in the rules) If you don't max the skill then it is either completely terrible or you might as well just take the unreliable 50% flaw.
For theme I think taking unreliable instead and justifying it as a skill check would cover it. (Yes it means that all ranks have the same chance of failure, and skill drains have no effect but how often is that going to happen.)
[Sblock]Plus it seems to have the same abusebility as the action flaw on containers. Make the check once and you can have all the benefits until you next become unconscious. I was surprised to see there is no discussion of action flaw abuse here which I guess shows that most players are sensible so it has not had need to come up yet.[/sblock]
hero4hire
Explorer
The skill to power rank ratio is to easily overcome for this to be actually limiting in many cases. I would approve it only on a case-by-case basis.
In Rystil's example above the DC is 14 which means the Mage in question would need a total skill modifier of around +4 for this to be an effective flaw. Most Mage's will have WAY more then that.
So except for the occasional exception to the rule I would have to vote NO on this flaw. Too easily abused.
In Rystil's example above the DC is 14 which means the Mage in question would need a total skill modifier of around +4 for this to be an effective flaw. Most Mage's will have WAY more then that.
So except for the occasional exception to the rule I would have to vote NO on this flaw. Too easily abused.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
