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: 2446405" data-attributes="member: 172"><p>Careful now. You are reading into my statements. I never said anything like "most" PrCs do this. Just that there <em>are</em> PrCs that do this. But really, the big thing you affect here is more feat chains than PrCs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, but if they work great UNTIL you introduce the flaw system, then things go out of whack.</p><p></p><p>So does that make those items poorly written, or the flaw system? I'm saying it's the flaw system. The authors of such resources had no reason to assume someone would come giving out feats like Santa giving out candy canes. I don't think it's at all fair to call them poorly designed and thought out when by the core system, they work just fine, but when you introduce this new system, all of a sudden they are arguable too potent.</p><p></p><p>If everyone has a problem with your neighbor, it's your neighbor. If you have problems with all your neighbors, it's you.</p><p></p><p>And the flaw system does not "work and play well with others."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My point was even if I was at home right now, I wouldn't be summoning up a list just to illustrate my point. I think it's pretty well obvious that the general design principle of feat chains is that you put the weakest feats first and follow them up with successively stronger feats. I don't think I should have to illustrate that.</p><p></p><p>Whether it's overpowered is a personal determination. But I do think that it's pretty clear that despite protestations to the contrary, they do add power to PCs in the game. Is that "overpowered"? That's up to you; I've had games where I just gave PCs feats. But I don't think DMs should labor under the delusion that it doesn't add power to the PCs who take them, or that (like the old 2e kits) characters without flaws are going to be as potent as those who take them.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, sure, why not? But again, beings that this can affect a wide variety of feat chains out there. The DM might have to deal with one of a variety of fires that weren't there before.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Whether or not you beleive that, that's sort of not the point. Those are feat driven chains, some of which require considerable prereqs and thus are typically only available at higher levels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not at all. Where did you get that?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't buy that. Most disadvantages are highly serendipitous if they have a credible chance of having an impact at all. Because players try to minimize their impact. It's only if the GM puts it in their face and/or creates a cost for avoiding it that you can be sure that it will have an impact in the game.</p><p></p><p>But I've seen this pattern before. Once this particular argument comes up, it's usually a sign that the person has stopped listening to reason and is emotionally committed.</p><p></p><p>So let me ask you, sincerely, do you <em>really</em> beleive that? I invite you to seriously consider this before answering.</p><p></p><p>If you do, I suggest to you that a majority of flaws I have seen to date are "not made properly". I think this is so not because the people who put them to paper were bad designers, but because the approach itself is problematic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If a feat is rarely an issue, then the player either chose it for flavor vice power or the GM is being a putz by not allowing the PC to ever shine. Typically, players specifically seek out feats they feel will benefit them and will step up to use them when the opportunity presents, so this is much less snakey of an issue.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, player psychology as well as the very role-driven nature of the game work counter to the notion that the two are parallel. They are not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>I</em> 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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You make it sound like he might actually be a case for actually deserving those two feats. I'm not seeing the problem <em>here</em>. In typical D&D, this situation would come up an awful lot. But let's say you are playing an (admittedly unusual) campaign that this situation is not so common. Somethink like SA with courtier as a core class and lots of subterfuge. Then all the sudden, the benefit does not look like it was compensated for.</p><p></p><p>Likewise, the player choosing this would likely try to engineer around it... and easily justify it too. If you stink at combat and are nauseated by it, how much does it hinder you if you make an enchanter who tries to solve every problem with charm spells. <em>This</em> is how characters are made. Players <em>don't</em> purposefully pick flaws that they think are going to hinder them greatly. I would be very surprised to see a fighter with the flaws you mention.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Psion, post: 2446405, member: 172"] Careful now. You are reading into my statements. I never said anything like "most" PrCs do this. Just that there [i]are[/i] PrCs that do this. But really, the big thing you affect here is more feat chains than PrCs. Ah, but if they work great UNTIL you introduce the flaw system, then things go out of whack. So does that make those items poorly written, or the flaw system? I'm saying it's the flaw system. The authors of such resources had no reason to assume someone would come giving out feats like Santa giving out candy canes. I don't think it's at all fair to call them poorly designed and thought out when by the core system, they work just fine, but when you introduce this new system, all of a sudden they are arguable too potent. If everyone has a problem with your neighbor, it's your neighbor. If you have problems with all your neighbors, it's you. And the flaw system does not "work and play well with others." My point was even if I was at home right now, I wouldn't be summoning up a list just to illustrate my point. I think it's pretty well obvious that the general design principle of feat chains is that you put the weakest feats first and follow them up with successively stronger feats. I don't think I should have to illustrate that. Whether it's overpowered is a personal determination. But I do think that it's pretty clear that despite protestations to the contrary, they do add power to PCs in the game. Is that "overpowered"? That's up to you; I've had games where I just gave PCs feats. But I don't think DMs should labor under the delusion that it doesn't add power to the PCs who take them, or that (like the old 2e kits) characters without flaws are going to be as potent as those who take them. Again, sure, why not? But again, beings that this can affect a wide variety of feat chains out there. The DM might have to deal with one of a variety of fires that weren't there before. Whether or not you beleive that, that's sort of not the point. Those are feat driven chains, some of which require considerable prereqs and thus are typically only available at higher levels. Not at all. Where did you get that? I don't buy that. Most disadvantages are highly serendipitous if they have a credible chance of having an impact at all. Because players try to minimize their impact. It's only if the GM puts it in their face and/or creates a cost for avoiding it that you can be sure that it will have an impact in the game. But I've seen this pattern before. Once this particular argument comes up, it's usually a sign that the person has stopped listening to reason and is emotionally committed. So let me ask you, sincerely, do you [i]really[/i] beleive that? I invite you to seriously consider this before answering. If you do, I suggest to you that a majority of flaws I have seen to date are "not made properly". I think this is so not because the people who put them to paper were bad designers, but because the approach itself is problematic. If a feat is rarely an issue, then the player either chose it for flavor vice power or the GM is being a putz by not allowing the PC to ever shine. Typically, players specifically seek out feats they feel will benefit them and will step up to use them when the opportunity presents, so this is much less snakey of an issue. Unfortunately, player psychology as well as the very role-driven nature of the game work counter to the notion that the two are parallel. They are not. [i]I[/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. You make it sound like he might actually be a case for actually deserving those two feats. I'm not seeing the problem [i]here[/i]. In typical D&D, this situation would come up an awful lot. But let's say you are playing an (admittedly unusual) campaign that this situation is not so common. Somethink like SA with courtier as a core class and lots of subterfuge. Then all the sudden, the benefit does not look like it was compensated for. Likewise, the player choosing this would likely try to engineer around it... and easily justify it too. If you stink at combat and are nauseated by it, how much does it hinder you if you make an enchanter who tries to solve every problem with charm spells. [i]This[/i] is how characters are made. Players [i]don't[/i] purposefully pick flaws that they think are going to hinder them greatly. I would be very surprised to see a fighter with the flaws you mention. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
do you allow flaws?
Top