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="Scion" data-source="post: 2446201" data-attributes="member: 5777"><p>Cool, more power to them <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This isnt even necissary to the extent you seem to mean, it is something that is 'already' done with most/all prcs to begin with.</p><p></p><p>Having a set rank needed in a specific skill is the easiest way to require a certain level and it is done 'very' often. There is no 'tacking' on to any degree. If you want it to take at least level 7 then saying, '10 ranks of skill X' fits this perfectly and you dont even need any other prereqs, but others are good for different reasons.</p><p></p><p>Using this sort of guideline, which they already do, then it doesnt matter what other sort of suppliments you are using (unless of course something allows gaining more max ranks than is normally possible, but then if the dm is letting something like that in then they have to realize there will be some issues here and there).</p><p></p><p>I do assume that all material I would be willing to use is well written or I will rewrite it better. I assume this because it is what I do. Given this if something is poorly written then I ignore it, because if it is poorly written or thought out in one way it may be in others as well. To some degree I think every experienced dm does this, so the assumption should be valid over a wide range.</p><p></p><p>If I see a prc that requires: 58 hp, bunny animal companion, +4.5 BAB, and/or other randomness (bunny is random because I have never seen a stat block for it, feel free to put in any other animal in this place that you feel is silly) then I know to be careful about it. Poorly written material should be avoided or modified.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But then your arguement led to my question.</p><p></p><p>If it isnt going to be overpowered then there I dont see any reason to dissallow it.</p><p></p><p>Now, like I said, I havent used it. However, there was a character I made online that 'only' worked if he was allowed to take flaws (that meshed directly with what he was going to be doing anyway yes, but he was already taking massive penalties, the flaw just made it mechanical rather than a poor choice of character). As such, I definately feel that there are times when it 'could' be warranted, or even needed.</p><p></p><p>If one is worried about people taking advantage that is an important worry, but it can happen with every part of the system. Either you let the players know what limits not to go past or you let them run rampant. Either can be fun depending on the group. Dissallowing it just because someone might go over the line (assuming that the line was drawn clearly, imaginary lines arent helpful) seems strange.</p><p></p><p></p><p>As for the sudden metamagics, they are poorly balanced to begin with. Just because something else makes them potentially even less balanced (though I dont feel that it does directly) doesnt mean much <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If you really mean this then you should likely dissallow feats entirely as my arguement holds true for 'any' feat, no matter what it is.</p><p></p><p>If the flaw is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly.</p><p>If the feat is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly.</p><p></p><p>They go hand in hand. I will say it again because it holds true no matter if we are talking about feats or flaws or anything else in the system: The penalty should not come up anymore often than any other feat has a chance to. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Note again the character I mentioned earlier.</p><p></p><p>Any attack rolls that he makes are at a -4 penalty, no matter what they are for, he hates causing violence.</p><p>Any time he directly injures or tries to injure someone he becomes sickened and must spend a full round action and make a will save to lose this condition.</p><p></p><p>2 flaws, 2 feats. He was already going to roleplay doing these anyway, it merely gave him the chance to have the mechanics laid out properly.</p><p></p><p>So, when would the 'per incident' happen? If he had the choice to make an attack but didnt? well, that is basically every round of combat. He would gain a huge amount of whatever benefit he was allowed all of the time. If he was forced to attack when he didnt want to? That would basically never happen, so he would always be living with the penalty but never get any benefit.</p><p></p><p>Neither of those seem like good solutions, so how would you handle it?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scion, post: 2446201, member: 5777"] Cool, more power to them ;) This isnt even necissary to the extent you seem to mean, it is something that is 'already' done with most/all prcs to begin with. Having a set rank needed in a specific skill is the easiest way to require a certain level and it is done 'very' often. There is no 'tacking' on to any degree. If you want it to take at least level 7 then saying, '10 ranks of skill X' fits this perfectly and you dont even need any other prereqs, but others are good for different reasons. Using this sort of guideline, which they already do, then it doesnt matter what other sort of suppliments you are using (unless of course something allows gaining more max ranks than is normally possible, but then if the dm is letting something like that in then they have to realize there will be some issues here and there). I do assume that all material I would be willing to use is well written or I will rewrite it better. I assume this because it is what I do. Given this if something is poorly written then I ignore it, because if it is poorly written or thought out in one way it may be in others as well. To some degree I think every experienced dm does this, so the assumption should be valid over a wide range. If I see a prc that requires: 58 hp, bunny animal companion, +4.5 BAB, and/or other randomness (bunny is random because I have never seen a stat block for it, feel free to put in any other animal in this place that you feel is silly) then I know to be careful about it. Poorly written material should be avoided or modified. But then your arguement led to my question. If it isnt going to be overpowered then there I dont see any reason to dissallow it. Now, like I said, I havent used it. However, there was a character I made online that 'only' worked if he was allowed to take flaws (that meshed directly with what he was going to be doing anyway yes, but he was already taking massive penalties, the flaw just made it mechanical rather than a poor choice of character). As such, I definately feel that there are times when it 'could' be warranted, or even needed. If one is worried about people taking advantage that is an important worry, but it can happen with every part of the system. Either you let the players know what limits not to go past or you let them run rampant. Either can be fun depending on the group. Dissallowing it just because someone might go over the line (assuming that the line was drawn clearly, imaginary lines arent helpful) seems strange. As for the sudden metamagics, they are poorly balanced to begin with. Just because something else makes them potentially even less balanced (though I dont feel that it does directly) doesnt mean much ;) If you really mean this then you should likely dissallow feats entirely as my arguement holds true for 'any' feat, no matter what it is. If the flaw is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly. If the feat is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly. They go hand in hand. I will say it again because it holds true no matter if we are talking about feats or flaws or anything else in the system: The penalty should not come up anymore often than any other feat has a chance to. Note again the character I mentioned earlier. Any attack rolls that he makes are at a -4 penalty, no matter what they are for, he hates causing violence. Any time he directly injures or tries to injure someone he becomes sickened and must spend a full round action and make a will save to lose this condition. 2 flaws, 2 feats. He was already going to roleplay doing these anyway, it merely gave him the chance to have the mechanics laid out properly. So, when would the 'per incident' happen? If he had the choice to make an attack but didnt? well, that is basically every round of combat. He would gain a huge amount of whatever benefit he was allowed all of the time. If he was forced to attack when he didnt want to? That would basically never happen, so he would always be living with the penalty but never get any benefit. Neither of those seem like good solutions, so how would you handle it? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
do you allow flaws?
Top