Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
do you allow flaws?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 2445278" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I only know UA system of Flaws, you have seen a hundred times more books than me, so I'm sure you know much better systems for this than the UA one. However I don't find the UA a terrible system, with some caveats.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Such a warning doesn't mean that much to me. It is there probably because the variant "takes away" something to the PC in order to provide the benefit, and so it's a heavier modification compared to just letting a PC take a feat or spell.</p><p></p><p>But badly-designed feats or spells have caused me "hassles" before, even without that warning. Actually I wish there had been a warning sometimes <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right... first of all it's a "loophole" only if you allow players to take as many Flaws as they want, and much worse if you allow more than one flaws system to be exploited by the same character.</p><p></p><p>I allow characters to take flaws, but only one has been interested (tho he's thinking of it to happen as a consequence of adventuring, so it hasn't taken it yet). Let's start with one and see how it works... i'm not sure if I would allow the second anyway. But with such a low number it should hardly unbalance the game.</p><p></p><p>I disagree however about the feat chains. If a feat is designed not to be taken earlier than a certain level in the game, it has a BAB requirement, not a number of feats required. Because:</p><p>(1) fighters could always manage to complete a feat chain in less than half time as anyone else, if the only requirements are previous feats</p><p>(2) if a designer's target is to let a feat be available at a certain level, reaching that target by planning a series of requisite feat is just more complicated as requiring a BAB or base ST for example</p><p></p><p>Same applies to PrCl entry minimum level. Some PrCls require many feats to qualify, but that's just because they want Fighter to be nearly the only to qualify, which isn't IMO a good thing since the start.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I very much agree with you that this should not be used in D&D. RP quirks should just be free, and bad quirks may turn out not be real disadvantages after all. UA Flaws aren't very much roleplay disadvantages however, they are very solid mechanical penalties.</p><p></p><p>But of course they have their own flaws (oops... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> ). The Flaw which gives you a melee/ranged attack penalty is a very bad idea. A wizard does NOT have a penalty at all from that, unless he uses a lot of touch/ray spells. It's too easy to get the feat for free. Same thing for a Flaw that gives you a penalty to a stat of choice, when one could just drop it on the dump stat. </p><p></p><p>However a Flaw which gives you an unavoidable penalty is fine for me, such as:</p><p></p><p>- less HP per HD</p><p>- a -4 to one saving throw</p><p>- a -8 (IIRC) initiative penalty</p><p>- large penalties on Listen & Spot</p><p>- an unnamed AC penalty</p><p></p><p>Some less than the others, but all of these apply to rolls or stats that you cannot avoid to use, and therefore they are a price you're definitely going to pay early or late.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I admit this is something I haven't though much before <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /> Usually I was more afraid of players taking a flaw in something they're more good than what they think they need.</p><p></p><p>IMXP however no one keeps his HP or AC to a minimum just because they're "not good anyway". And e.g. it's PC with a low ST that takes Great Fortitude/LReflexes/Iron Will. It could be possible for a real min-maxer to try this trick, but I wonder if it's really worth for just one feat (btw, notice that all UA flaws give a penalty which is twice as big as the bonus given by a feat to the same thing).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 2445278, member: 1465"] I only know UA system of Flaws, you have seen a hundred times more books than me, so I'm sure you know much better systems for this than the UA one. However I don't find the UA a terrible system, with some caveats. Such a warning doesn't mean that much to me. It is there probably because the variant "takes away" something to the PC in order to provide the benefit, and so it's a heavier modification compared to just letting a PC take a feat or spell. But badly-designed feats or spells have caused me "hassles" before, even without that warning. Actually I wish there had been a warning sometimes :p Right... first of all it's a "loophole" only if you allow players to take as many Flaws as they want, and much worse if you allow more than one flaws system to be exploited by the same character. I allow characters to take flaws, but only one has been interested (tho he's thinking of it to happen as a consequence of adventuring, so it hasn't taken it yet). Let's start with one and see how it works... i'm not sure if I would allow the second anyway. But with such a low number it should hardly unbalance the game. I disagree however about the feat chains. If a feat is designed not to be taken earlier than a certain level in the game, it has a BAB requirement, not a number of feats required. Because: (1) fighters could always manage to complete a feat chain in less than half time as anyone else, if the only requirements are previous feats (2) if a designer's target is to let a feat be available at a certain level, reaching that target by planning a series of requisite feat is just more complicated as requiring a BAB or base ST for example Same applies to PrCl entry minimum level. Some PrCls require many feats to qualify, but that's just because they want Fighter to be nearly the only to qualify, which isn't IMO a good thing since the start. I very much agree with you that this should not be used in D&D. RP quirks should just be free, and bad quirks may turn out not be real disadvantages after all. UA Flaws aren't very much roleplay disadvantages however, they are very solid mechanical penalties. But of course they have their own flaws (oops... :p ). The Flaw which gives you a melee/ranged attack penalty is a very bad idea. A wizard does NOT have a penalty at all from that, unless he uses a lot of touch/ray spells. It's too easy to get the feat for free. Same thing for a Flaw that gives you a penalty to a stat of choice, when one could just drop it on the dump stat. However a Flaw which gives you an unavoidable penalty is fine for me, such as: - less HP per HD - a -4 to one saving throw - a -8 (IIRC) initiative penalty - large penalties on Listen & Spot - an unnamed AC penalty Some less than the others, but all of these apply to rolls or stats that you cannot avoid to use, and therefore they are a price you're definitely going to pay early or late. I admit this is something I haven't though much before :) Usually I was more afraid of players taking a flaw in something they're more good than what they think they need. IMXP however no one keeps his HP or AC to a minimum just because they're "not good anyway". And e.g. it's PC with a low ST that takes Great Fortitude/LReflexes/Iron Will. It could be possible for a real min-maxer to try this trick, but I wonder if it's really worth for just one feat (btw, notice that all UA flaws give a penalty which is twice as big as the bonus given by a feat to the same thing). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
do you allow flaws?
Top