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="Psion" data-source="post: 2446065" data-attributes="member: 172"><p>Quote possibly (I have seen it, esp. where fighter-based classes are concerned, since being human might only buy you one level), but not necessarily.</p><p></p><p>But the designer might also specify the race or allow a racial ability to fill the slot of a prerequisite.</p><p></p><p>That said, if someone wants to game the system by getting a leg up on feat chains, they are going to pick a human AND take flaws. Not just one or the other.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree picking something more stable would be better. But going on the assumptions of the core rules is much less of a flaw than de-stabilizing them. And I doubt many designers are going to go out of their way tacking on BAB requirements just to satisfy a highly optional and variant rule-set. They are going to write their material to the core. And again, they should, because trying to guestimate what some designer is going to throw in is an excercise in divination.</p><p></p><p>The designers of the new material, OTOH, have the benefit of seeing what the core assumption are. The shame is on them for throwing them out of whack, not on those who assume the core holds true.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's a loaded question, because there are dozens of books out there with feat chains of their own design that follow the core assumptions.</p><p></p><p>I also don't particularly care for your assumption that it is going to "break a character wide open", since I didn't attach that level of histrionics to my disdain for the flaw sysem. It's just an escalation of power. Some are going to buy into the system figuring that the players don't get that much benefit, because they theoretically trade on feats worth of benefits for one feats worth of flaws, where the flaw never grows in significance (at least none of the ones I can think of will), but the character will be one feat ahead on a feat chain every step of the way... allowing access to bigger and bigger feats.</p><p></p><p>That said, it seems to me that getting some of the sudden metamagics a little early might be something I would be loath to deal with.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And in that breath, you are making my case for me. How much of a benefit it is varies highly. And if the GM doesn't have a way to exploit it handy (or simply has other things to deal with) it slips through the cracks. This is why per incident compensation is superior. When it does not come up, the player does not reap the benefits. When it does, he does. Which is a marked improvement.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Psion, post: 2446065, member: 172"] Quote possibly (I have seen it, esp. where fighter-based classes are concerned, since being human might only buy you one level), but not necessarily. But the designer might also specify the race or allow a racial ability to fill the slot of a prerequisite. That said, if someone wants to game the system by getting a leg up on feat chains, they are going to pick a human AND take flaws. Not just one or the other. I agree picking something more stable would be better. But going on the assumptions of the core rules is much less of a flaw than de-stabilizing them. And I doubt many designers are going to go out of their way tacking on BAB requirements just to satisfy a highly optional and variant rule-set. They are going to write their material to the core. And again, they should, because trying to guestimate what some designer is going to throw in is an excercise in divination. The designers of the new material, OTOH, have the benefit of seeing what the core assumption are. The shame is on them for throwing them out of whack, not on those who assume the core holds true. That's a loaded question, because there are dozens of books out there with feat chains of their own design that follow the core assumptions. I also don't particularly care for your assumption that it is going to "break a character wide open", since I didn't attach that level of histrionics to my disdain for the flaw sysem. It's just an escalation of power. Some are going to buy into the system figuring that the players don't get that much benefit, because they theoretically trade on feats worth of benefits for one feats worth of flaws, where the flaw never grows in significance (at least none of the ones I can think of will), but the character will be one feat ahead on a feat chain every step of the way... allowing access to bigger and bigger feats. That said, it seems to me that getting some of the sudden metamagics a little early might be something I would be loath to deal with. And in that breath, you are making my case for me. How much of a benefit it is varies highly. And if the GM doesn't have a way to exploit it handy (or simply has other things to deal with) it slips through the cracks. This is why per incident compensation is superior. When it does not come up, the player does not reap the benefits. When it does, he does. Which is a marked improvement. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
do you allow flaws?
Top