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
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: 2446845" data-attributes="member: 172"><p>Again, stop trying to force me into one end of a dichotomy! I won't go, dammit! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":]" title="Devious :]" data-shortname=":]" /></p><p></p><p>I'm not saying and never said it would be "incredibly disruptive". It's an escalation and has the potential to make lots of existing material more potent than it would be.</p><p></p><p>Is that a problem? Not if an escalation is what you want or expect.</p><p></p><p>But if you are living under the naive assumption that the tradeoff is even, you may be in for a surprise.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did give you an example. You said "it's already broken". I am sorry I am not at home, but that's the best one I could think of that fit the mold. But again, seeing this response once makes me consider it likely that any other example I would look up would similarly be quickly dismissed, so I am not convinced this excercise is fruitful. After all, if they work for your game, who am I to stop you? Whatever issues I see you either don't mind taking responsibility for or you don't see as issues.</p><p></p><p>But it could come back to bite you. I used to think the flaw mechanic in Skills & Powers was workable until one player convinced me otherwise...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Who's tossing aside balance? Balance is the entire reason I think its a crappy mechanic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If the flaw is authentically balanced at low levels, it might not affect low level play. That's not where my main concern lies. (But as I said before, the practice of "deficit spending" and active player minmaxing efforts means that many flaws could never hope to balance the best feat that you could pick at first level. But that's sort of deside the point; suffice it to say that this is not where my major concern lies, at least whereas this subsection of the discussion is concerned)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Indeed there are a lot of factors. Which is why I can only hope to speak of general design principles.</p><p></p><p>But the general design principle is this: feats further along in a feat chain are more potent. So when analyzing the balance of a feat versus a flaw, you are not balancing it with the weak one that the player selected at first level. Rather, you have put them further along their feat chains; you must consider the most powerful feat they have selected at high levels.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not that simple. That you get feats for flaws is apparent. What's not apparent is that the benefit of having extra feats can have a increasing impact and can be chosen to complement a character's forte, whereas a flaw is essentially fixed and can be chosen to be of minimal impact.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, not exactly. You added the assumption that flaws and feats are parallel. My very involvement in this thread is over the fact that the tradeoff is not a zero sum. My later explanations illustrate why I feel it is not a zero sum. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So it would seem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This touches on an interesting point.</p><p></p><p>The word "balance" gets bandied about a lot, and absent of any further definition, causes lots of hate and discontent.</p><p></p><p>I have a few litmus tests when it comes to balance. One of these is: does the item under question invalidate or make unattractive other character choices that you want to be valid? (For example, does one class have benefits that cause players to frequently choose it over another class that should be a valid PC choice.)</p><p></p><p>In this case, I feel that the flaw mechanic fails this litmus test for the same reason 2e kits do: because not having a flaw tends to be preferable to not having a flaw. If you can act to minimize your flaw, in exchange for letting you potentially benefit from putting you further along a feat chain, this really, in the long run, makes the flaw a net benefit. Which is fine if everyone has a flaw, but I feel that not having a flaw should be a valid character choice. But it seems to me a character who takes the flaw benefit is clearly better off.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think I have. Me not being at home right now leaves me at something of a disadvantage when it comes to providing examples (not that I feel I am going to <em>"prove"</em> anything, but perhaps to show you what I mean.) </p><p></p><p>I am making my conclusions based on existing design principles and assumptions behind d20/D&D 3e. Hopeful, the concept of level-appropriateness of powers and feats is something that means something to you. If not, any such example I would care to muster would be pointless.</p><p></p><p>If it does, I would hope that you would agree that there exists a number of abilities (feats, PrC abilities, etc) that are as potent as is allowable at a given level. If this is the case, then there should exist a number of these out there in a variety of books or supplements that you use, and making these available earlier is inappropriate, or at least, less appropriate.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's getting a bit snarky and passive-agressive. Let's not go there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm more saying that it can work, but I don't think its the best way to handle it.</p><p></p><p>A GM can manage the game so that the character faces challenges comensurate with the benefit the feat provides. But I feel that it is more natural and easy to manage awarding the benefit around the occurances (that's right! you have hydrophobia! Here, have an action point/some xp/whatever) rather than trying to mold the campaign around the character's weaknesses (oh crap, it's been a few sessions since I hit you up for your hydrophobia and the game is in a desert...)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Color me surprised. Obviously, it seems that this character was not min/maxed.</p><p></p><p>It's not the non min/maxed characters that give me balance headaches, though. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Psion, post: 2446845, member: 172"] Again, stop trying to force me into one end of a dichotomy! I won't go, dammit! :] I'm not saying and never said it would be "incredibly disruptive". It's an escalation and has the potential to make lots of existing material more potent than it would be. Is that a problem? Not if an escalation is what you want or expect. But if you are living under the naive assumption that the tradeoff is even, you may be in for a surprise. I did give you an example. You said "it's already broken". I am sorry I am not at home, but that's the best one I could think of that fit the mold. But again, seeing this response once makes me consider it likely that any other example I would look up would similarly be quickly dismissed, so I am not convinced this excercise is fruitful. After all, if they work for your game, who am I to stop you? Whatever issues I see you either don't mind taking responsibility for or you don't see as issues. But it could come back to bite you. I used to think the flaw mechanic in Skills & Powers was workable until one player convinced me otherwise... Who's tossing aside balance? Balance is the entire reason I think its a crappy mechanic. If the flaw is authentically balanced at low levels, it might not affect low level play. That's not where my main concern lies. (But as I said before, the practice of "deficit spending" and active player minmaxing efforts means that many flaws could never hope to balance the best feat that you could pick at first level. But that's sort of deside the point; suffice it to say that this is not where my major concern lies, at least whereas this subsection of the discussion is concerned) Indeed there are a lot of factors. Which is why I can only hope to speak of general design principles. But the general design principle is this: feats further along in a feat chain are more potent. So when analyzing the balance of a feat versus a flaw, you are not balancing it with the weak one that the player selected at first level. Rather, you have put them further along their feat chains; you must consider the most powerful feat they have selected at high levels. It's not that simple. That you get feats for flaws is apparent. What's not apparent is that the benefit of having extra feats can have a increasing impact and can be chosen to complement a character's forte, whereas a flaw is essentially fixed and can be chosen to be of minimal impact. No, not exactly. You added the assumption that flaws and feats are parallel. My very involvement in this thread is over the fact that the tradeoff is not a zero sum. My later explanations illustrate why I feel it is not a zero sum. So it would seem. This touches on an interesting point. The word "balance" gets bandied about a lot, and absent of any further definition, causes lots of hate and discontent. I have a few litmus tests when it comes to balance. One of these is: does the item under question invalidate or make unattractive other character choices that you want to be valid? (For example, does one class have benefits that cause players to frequently choose it over another class that should be a valid PC choice.) In this case, I feel that the flaw mechanic fails this litmus test for the same reason 2e kits do: because not having a flaw tends to be preferable to not having a flaw. If you can act to minimize your flaw, in exchange for letting you potentially benefit from putting you further along a feat chain, this really, in the long run, makes the flaw a net benefit. Which is fine if everyone has a flaw, but I feel that not having a flaw should be a valid character choice. But it seems to me a character who takes the flaw benefit is clearly better off. I think I have. Me not being at home right now leaves me at something of a disadvantage when it comes to providing examples (not that I feel I am going to [i]"prove"[/i] anything, but perhaps to show you what I mean.) I am making my conclusions based on existing design principles and assumptions behind d20/D&D 3e. Hopeful, the concept of level-appropriateness of powers and feats is something that means something to you. If not, any such example I would care to muster would be pointless. If it does, I would hope that you would agree that there exists a number of abilities (feats, PrC abilities, etc) that are as potent as is allowable at a given level. If this is the case, then there should exist a number of these out there in a variety of books or supplements that you use, and making these available earlier is inappropriate, or at least, less appropriate. That's getting a bit snarky and passive-agressive. Let's not go there. I'm more saying that it can work, but I don't think its the best way to handle it. A GM can manage the game so that the character faces challenges comensurate with the benefit the feat provides. But I feel that it is more natural and easy to manage awarding the benefit around the occurances (that's right! you have hydrophobia! Here, have an action point/some xp/whatever) rather than trying to mold the campaign around the character's weaknesses (oh crap, it's been a few sessions since I hit you up for your hydrophobia and the game is in a desert...) Color me surprised. Obviously, it seems that this character was not min/maxed. It's not the non min/maxed characters that give me balance headaches, though. ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
do you allow flaws?
Top