Check Required Flaw

[Rystil Arden]

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.

I'm confused--wouldn't it have to be +13? And to get +13 in a skill, you have to pay more than you would have saved in the example anyway; I only used that example because it was the one SK used when he wrote UP.

 

[hero4hire]

I'm confused--wouldn't it have to be +13? And to get +13 in a skill, you have to pay more than you would have saved in the example anyway; I only used that example because it was the one SK used when he wrote UP.

In the example a +13 in the skill would amount to auto success. +4 would amount to 50/50 failure rate which Flaws are scaled against to be considered an effective flaw.

 

[Rystil Arden]

In the example a +13 in the skill would amount to auto success. +4 would amount to 50/50 failure rate which Flaws are scaled against to be considered an effective flaw.

I'm not so sure that 50/50 should be considered an 'effective' flaw. That's more a devastating flaw. I know it's an available flaw (Unreliable), but it is way way way more trouble than the points it gives you are worth compared to almost any other flaw, and while I haven't looked closely, I've not seen anyone take it yet. And even to beat the 50/50, the character in the example would need to spend at least 2 PP on the skill anyway, which pays back the 2 they saved.

 

[hero4hire]

I'm not so sure that 50/50 should be considered an 'effective' flaw. That's more a devastating flaw. I know it's an available flaw (Unreliable), but it is way way way more trouble than the points it gives you are worth compared to almost any other flaw, and while I haven't looked closely, I've not seen anyone take it yet. And even to beat the 50/50, the character in the example would need to spend at least 2 PP on the skill anyway, which pays back the 2 they saved.

Whether you are sure or not that is the design philosophy of Flaws is it not? "Half effective"? or "Limits the character about half the time"?

Skills are not weighed in thier effectiveness of counteracting flaws, but if you spent 2pp in a skill that would be 8 ranks plus whatever their stat bonus.

a 30% failure (or less)?

Still a Big NO from me. Way to easily circumvented to be an adequate flaw for the masses. Only in certain cases would this be Flaw-worthy.

 

[rgordona]

I'm not so sure that 50/50 should be considered an 'effective' flaw. That's more a devastating flaw. I know it's an available flaw (Unreliable), but it is way way way more trouble than the points it gives you are worth compared to almost any other flaw, and while I haven't looked closely, I've not seen anyone take it yet. And even to beat the 50/50, the character in the example would need to spend at least 2 PP on the skill anyway, which pays back the 2 they saved.

Many people have taken Attractive though which is flawed by at least 50% quite possibly much more. People have also taken the Physical/Energy only flaw as well which is also 50%.

The problem is that it can be a huge synergy bonus, if the magician in the example above was going to max his skill anyway, (say because he wants to be a ritualist) then taking check required on everything is just points for free.

The argument that the points paid for the skill balance with the points saved with the flaw assumes that the raw skill has no value, which is often not true.

[Sblock=atractive] I say at least 50% because while you might get some bonus aganst some members of the same sex it is certain that aliens/robots/monsters/time travelers/complete psychos/etc will not be ilflueced by atractiveness.[/sblock]

 

[D.Shaffer]

Not a judge, but something that I think needs to be kept in mind that skill checks arent always made in a vacuum. If a power needed, say, Perform-Dance to be successful, there are environment conditions that would greatly effect it. Granted, the Limit flaw could also work in some cases, but it helps duplicate certain comic book effects in a more intuitive fashion. I'd rather see it with a more cost inefficient addendum then outright banned.

 

[rgordona]

I tend to think that sort of thing (need to perform a dance etc) can already be covered with either a powerloss drawback or a complication.

I agree there are many genre cases where it is appropriate, I just think the abuse potential is too high and there are other routes available for the same effect.


[Sblock]I am posting too much today need to do some real work[/sblock]

 

[Hand of Vecna]

I'd lean more towards using the Unreliable flaw in most such cases, but I do see the logic/reasonings behind Check Required. I'll need to think more on this.

 

[hero4hire]

I just took a look at Magus who was built with this flaw.

This is a perfect example of this Flaw not inhibiting the character at all.

Glancing at the characters powers the highest Check DC would be an 18 and the character has a +20 (or 24) Bonus. Even if we say a natural one is a failure that is a 95% success rate. So the character saved around 24pp for a flaw that almost never is hampering?
Yikes!

 

[Rystil Arden]

Many people have taken Attractive though which is flawed by at least 50% quite possibly much more. People have also taken the Physical/Energy only flaw as well which is also 50%.

The problem is that it can be a huge synergy bonus, if the magician in the example above was going to max his skill anyway, (say because he wants to be a ritualist) then taking check required on everything is just points for free.

The argument that the points paid for the skill balance with the points saved with the flaw assumes that the raw skill has no value, which is often not true.

[Sblock=atractive] I say at least 50% because while you might get some bonus aganst some members of the same sex it is certain that aliens/robots/monsters/time travelers/complete psychos/etc will not be ilflueced by atractiveness.[/sblock]

Ah, a flaw that makes it not work on half the cases in a reliable and predictable fashion is highly reasonable. A flaw that makes it not work randomly half the time is much much worse. Why? Because you waste the action trying.