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: 2446520" data-attributes="member: 5777"><p>You said that they would have to go out of their way to do so, but they dont, they merely have to follow the basic rules that they 'already' follow.</p><p></p><p>I dont know of any prc's that require a feat chain that do not require some sort of nonfeat requirement somewhere in there.</p><p></p><p>But even then, if they are able to get in a level or two earlier I highly doubt this will be incredibly disruptive. If anything it is likely to make their character more like what they want. I see that as a good thing, not a bad one <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This has yet to be shown.</p><p></p><p>Like I said earlier, I would love to see some things where this happens.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I know that you have said this before, but I still havent seen anything convincing pointing in that direction. Except perhaps poorly made flaws (which I am sure could happen) or poorly made prcs (which do happen). These are both easy enough to fix, just like anything else questionable in the system and are not a direct result of the flaws, they were already there.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Now you have said that you do not wish to illustrate your point. That is fine I suppose, but it does mean that I personally will take what you have said merely as an opinion with potentially no basis. I doubt this matters to you of course, but if I was going to decide whether or not to use them I would discount your vote completely based on that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If we are tossing aside all semblance of balance then there is little point for the entire discussion.</p><p></p><p>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. 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.</p><p></p><p>Yes, someone could grab some extra feats early on, but they also have all of those penalties right from the start as well. Tradeoffs.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>From what you said.</p><p></p><p>I had said that they should get equal treatment just like any feat would, you said that this proved your point.</p><p></p><p>So, either we have a problem with everything in that category or nothing, as they are each in exactly the same boat for usefulness/detriment.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I see flaws in a different light than you do I suppose.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The flaws make for something that is difficult or impossible to overcome directly and so you get some other bonus.</p><p></p><p><em>Of course</em> people are going to try to minimize its impact, just like every other part that is bad.. like a low wisdom fighter will try to minimize the impact of his horrible will save. There is no difference there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am asking you to provide your reasoning and explain the parts that I feel are either inconsistant, contradictory, or (in my eyes) incorrect.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have given some ideas and examples of reasons why I feel it works in a different way than you have said. That is generally how a discussion works <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you are saying that it can work, if done properly.</p><p></p><p>Good enough for me, that was all that I was saying. Just because something has poor implimitation in some areas does not make the whole idea flawed (ha).</p><p></p><p>Still though, even in the subterfuge game not being able to harm anyone can cause a lot of problems, but even if it doesnt the amount of feats that will help a lot in such a situation are likewise fairly limited (given that many feats are combat oriented).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually, the character in question 'was' a fighter type (psychic warrior actually). Not a fighter directly, because they are no good out of combat anyway.. if a fighter had those flaws they would need a whole lot more compensation than a paltry 2 feats. He might need 'dozens' of feats over his 20 level career to make it a valid choice.</p><p></p><p>If the character starts solving his problems useing only charms good for him. He knows his limitations and has found a way to work around them. This sort of approach 'will' backfire quite often however.</p><p></p><p>Just like a mage cannot wear most armors but still needs a good AC, he will find a way to make up for the lack or die trying.</p><p></p><p>I dont see any difference there <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Roleplaying drawbacks/rewards for roleplaying rewards/drawbacks.</p><p>Mechanical drawbacks/rewards for mechanical rewards/drawbacks.</p><p></p><p>If one has one why cant they get the other somehow? Some are minor enough to not matter either way, but a gaping hole of doom? Something has to be done to make the character concept worth playing still.</p><p></p><p>Feats are a decent solution. Of course there are better ones (especially tailor made exceptions) but generally that would be in the province of the dm and outside of general rules, because it would favor lack of choices over choices when written into a book like that.</p><p></p><p>So long as the dm makes sure that the penalty is enough and the benefit is fitting the character, whether because of the drawback, in spite of it, or some other factor, it seems like it 'could' work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scion, post: 2446520, member: 5777"] You said that they would have to go out of their way to do so, but they dont, they merely have to follow the basic rules that they 'already' follow. I dont know of any prc's that require a feat chain that do not require some sort of nonfeat requirement somewhere in there. But even then, if they are able to get in a level or two earlier I highly doubt this will be incredibly disruptive. If anything it is likely to make their character more like what they want. I see that as a good thing, not a bad one ;) This has yet to be shown. Like I said earlier, I would love to see some things where this happens. I know that you have said this before, but I still havent seen anything convincing pointing in that direction. Except perhaps poorly made flaws (which I am sure could happen) or poorly made prcs (which do happen). These are both easy enough to fix, just like anything else questionable in the system and are not a direct result of the flaws, they were already there. Now you have said that you do not wish to illustrate your point. That is fine I suppose, but it does mean that I personally will take what you have said merely as an opinion with potentially no basis. I doubt this matters to you of course, but if I was going to decide whether or not to use them I would discount your vote completely based on that. If we are tossing aside all semblance of balance then there is little point for the entire discussion. 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. 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. Yes, someone could grab some extra feats early on, but they also have all of those penalties right from the start as well. Tradeoffs. From what you said. I had said that they should get equal treatment just like any feat would, you said that this proved your point. So, either we have a problem with everything in that category or nothing, as they are each in exactly the same boat for usefulness/detriment. I see flaws in a different light than you do I suppose. 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. The flaws make for something that is difficult or impossible to overcome directly and so you get some other bonus. [I]Of course[/I] people are going to try to minimize its impact, just like every other part that is bad.. like a low wisdom fighter will try to minimize the impact of his horrible will save. There is no difference there. I am asking you to provide your reasoning and explain the parts that I feel are either inconsistant, contradictory, or (in my eyes) incorrect. 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. I have given some ideas and examples of reasons why I feel it works in a different way than you have said. That is generally how a discussion works ;) So you are saying that it can work, if done properly. Good enough for me, that was all that I was saying. Just because something has poor implimitation in some areas does not make the whole idea flawed (ha). Still though, even in the subterfuge game not being able to harm anyone can cause a lot of problems, but even if it doesnt the amount of feats that will help a lot in such a situation are likewise fairly limited (given that many feats are combat oriented). Actually, the character in question 'was' a fighter type (psychic warrior actually). Not a fighter directly, because they are no good out of combat anyway.. if a fighter had those flaws they would need a whole lot more compensation than a paltry 2 feats. He might need 'dozens' of feats over his 20 level career to make it a valid choice. If the character starts solving his problems useing only charms good for him. He knows his limitations and has found a way to work around them. This sort of approach 'will' backfire quite often however. Just like a mage cannot wear most armors but still needs a good AC, he will find a way to make up for the lack or die trying. I dont see any difference there ;) Roleplaying drawbacks/rewards for roleplaying rewards/drawbacks. Mechanical drawbacks/rewards for mechanical rewards/drawbacks. If one has one why cant they get the other somehow? Some are minor enough to not matter either way, but a gaping hole of doom? Something has to be done to make the character concept worth playing still. Feats are a decent solution. Of course there are better ones (especially tailor made exceptions) but generally that would be in the province of the dm and outside of general rules, because it would favor lack of choices over choices when written into a book like that. So long as the dm makes sure that the penalty is enough and the benefit is fitting the character, whether because of the drawback, in spite of it, or some other factor, it seems like it 'could' work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
do you allow flaws?
Top