do you allow flaws?

[Scion]

I wouldn't make an attack penalty a flaw at all. That's one of those cases of those who it affects wouldn't take it, those who it won't affect significantly (arcane spellcasters) would.

Note that you mean specific types of builds for arcane casters.

If you want to get around SR, or around saves, or a few other things then you still need to make attack rolls now and then.

Sometimes you even run out of spells, or dont have the correct spells prepared and need to fall back to a weapon.

Sounds like even in the 'best case possible' it is still a major drawback always waiting to happen

 

[Scion]

Ah, now that's a horse of a different color. That is trading benefits/capabilities for other capabilities. And it sounds like a pretty reasonable and cool way to tweak a class I consider over specialized. But from what I have seen, not too typical of flaws.

But again, we could make your same arguement.

What if the player wasnt going to make use of those abilities to begin with. You are again giving them something for nothing by the same reasoning.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Depends on the game. For D&D, nope. For D20 Modern, mutants get dabilitating mutations to even out their beneficial ones.

I used them in GURPS and Alternity though.

Kane

 

[devilbat]

I allow characters to have up to two flaws. I loved the disadvantage system in Deadlands, so I welcomed them to D&D.

 

[Desdichado]

To both Psion and IcyCool--that's a player problem, not a problem with the flaw mechanic per se.

I don't mind flaws. Personally I prefer the traits from Unearthed Arcana that are kind of like flaw and feat already mashed together. But I'll allow flaws. Nobody in my group would do anything other than make them interesting.

 

[Desdichado]

And I'd just like to add that I'm very glad a discussion between Psion and Scion is in print and not verbal.

 

[Scion]

And I'd just like to add that I'm very glad a discussion between Psion and Scion is in print and not verbal.

because it is good to have a friendly discussion written down as opposed to being lost to the wind?

(although it is a complicated subject and we have differing views on the matter I dont feel that it has been hostile, merely difficult to see different positions)

 

[Psion]

But even then, if they are able to get in a level or two earlier I highly doubt this will be incredibly disruptive.

Again, stop trying to force me into one end of a dichotomy! I won't go, dammit!

I'm not saying and never said it would be "incredibly disruptive". It's an escalation and has the potential to make lots of existing material more potent than it would be.

Is that a problem? Not if an escalation is what you want or expect.

But if you are living under the naive assumption that the tradeoff is even, you may be in for a surprise.

This has yet to be shown.

Now you have said that you do not wish to illustrate your point.

I did give you an example. You said "it's already broken". I am sorry I am not at home, but that's the best one I could think of that fit the mold. But again, seeing this response once makes me consider it likely that any other example I would look up would similarly be quickly dismissed, so I am not convinced this excercise is fruitful. After all, if they work for your game, who am I to stop you? Whatever issues I see you either don't mind taking responsibility for or you don't see as issues.

But it could come back to bite you. I used to think the flaw mechanic in Skills & Powers was workable until one player convinced me otherwise...

If we are tossing aside all semblance of balance then there is little point for the entire discussion.

Who's tossing aside balance? Balance is the entire reason I think its a crappy mechanic.

Still though, having a higher number of entry level feats (feats which are, by your own admitance, weaker) is unlikely to seriously impact low level play.

If the flaw is authentically balanced at low levels, it might not affect low level play. That's not where my main concern lies. (But as I said before, the practice of "deficit spending" and active player minmaxing efforts means that many flaws could never hope to balance the best feat that you could pick at first level. But that's sort of deside the point; suffice it to say that this is not where my major concern lies, at least whereas this subsection of the discussion is concerned)

It 'might' impact high level play depending but there are so many factors that could do so that this seems to be a proverbial drop in the bucket without further evidence.

Indeed there are a lot of factors. Which is why I can only hope to speak of general design principles.

But the general design principle is this: feats further along in a feat chain are more potent. So when analyzing the balance of a feat versus a flaw, you are not balancing it with the weak one that the player selected at first level. Rather, you have put them further along their feat chains; you must consider the most powerful feat they have selected at high levels.

Yes, someone could grab some extra feats early on, but they also have all of those penalties right from the start as well. Tradeoffs.

It's not that simple. That you get feats for flaws is apparent. What's not apparent is that the benefit of having extra feats can have a increasing impact and can be chosen to complement a character's forte, whereas a flaw is essentially fixed and can be chosen to be of minimal impact.

From what you said.

No, not exactly. You added the assumption that flaws and feats are parallel. My very involvement in this thread is over the fact that the tradeoff is not a zero sum. My later explanations illustrate why I feel it is not a zero sum.

I see flaws in a different light than you do I suppose.

So it would seem.

I see them as a way to make a character concept that would normally not work, or not work very well, to be balanced with the rest of the party.

Minimizing penalties is exactly what people do with every single part of the system, you try to get rid of things that can hinder your ability to survive.

This touches on an interesting point.

The word "balance" gets bandied about a lot, and absent of any further definition, causes lots of hate and discontent.

I have a few litmus tests when it comes to balance. One of these is: does the item under question invalidate or make unattractive other character choices that you want to be valid? (For example, does one class have benefits that cause players to frequently choose it over another class that should be a valid PC choice.)

In this case, I feel that the flaw mechanic fails this litmus test for the same reason 2e kits do: because not having a flaw tends to be preferable to not having a flaw. If you can act to minimize your flaw, in exchange for letting you potentially benefit from putting you further along a feat chain, this really, in the long run, makes the flaw a net benefit. Which is fine if everyone has a flaw, but I feel that not having a flaw should be a valid character choice. But it seems to me a character who takes the flaw benefit is clearly better off.

I am asking you to provide your reasoning and explain the parts that I feel are either inconsistant, contradictory, or (in my eyes) incorrect.

I think I have. Me not being at home right now leaves me at something of a disadvantage when it comes to providing examples (not that I feel I am going to "prove" anything, but perhaps to show you what I mean.)

I am making my conclusions based on existing design principles and assumptions behind d20/D&D 3e. Hopeful, the concept of level-appropriateness of powers and feats is something that means something to you. If not, any such example I would care to muster would be pointless.

If it does, I would hope that you would agree that there exists a number of abilities (feats, PrC abilities, etc) that are as potent as is allowable at a given level. If this is the case, then there should exist a number of these out there in a variety of books or supplements that you use, and making these available earlier is inappropriate, or at least, less appropriate.

If you feel that you cannot defend your arguements sufficiently, or if you feel that I am asking for more information than you feel should be required, that is your own call.

That's getting a bit snarky and passive-agressive. Let's not go there.

So you are saying that it can work, if done properly.

I'm more saying that it can work, but I don't think its the best way to handle it.

A GM can manage the game so that the character faces challenges comensurate with the benefit the feat provides. But I feel that it is more natural and easy to manage awarding the benefit around the occurances (that's right! you have hydrophobia! Here, have an action point/some xp/whatever) rather than trying to mold the campaign around the character's weaknesses (oh crap, it's been a few sessions since I hit you up for your hydrophobia and the game is in a desert...)

Actually, the character in question 'was' a fighter type (psychic warrior actually).

Color me surprised. Obviously, it seems that this character was not min/maxed.

It's not the non min/maxed characters that give me balance headaches, though.

 

[Psion]

Note that you mean specific types of builds for arcane casters.

Well, yeah. If I am destined for eldritch knight, then taking that flaw is just counter productive.

But there is nothing about the mechanic that makes you take a suboptimal build. In general principle, arcane casters don't rely heavily on BAB, and such a character can choose spells so as not to rely on touch attack spells.

 

[Kelleris]

because it is good to have a friendly discussion written down as opposed to being lost to the wind?

No, because it is good to be able to tell the two disputants apart.