(Proposal) Flaws

Zerith · Jan 9, 2011

As is apparent, I’m proposing adding Flaws to EN World.
The basic ones (Frail, murky-eyed, weak will, etc) are givens and I assume most are already familiar with, so I’ll just make a few I think might be interesting while keeping in mind that that the average flaw takes away one and a half times to two times as much as the average feat gives.

Pro: Allows more character customization, adds more character flavor.
(Possible) Con: Also allows increased specialization.

Lame Leg
You have problems walking because of a improperly healed wound or deformity in one or both legs, or motion impairment.

Effect
When running, you can only move up to twice your normal speed and can only be wearing up to light armor with no more than a light load

Special
You cannot charge while wearing medium or heavy armor, or when carrying a medium or heavy load.
You cannot attain the run feat.
If your lameness is healed, or otherwise cured, this flaw is immediately removed along with a feat

Lame/Amputated Arm
You have only one usable arm, the other is to feeble to be used in any practical manner, is a useless stub or is simply not there.

Effect
you have only one arm and can only use a single one handed weapon or an item that can be used with only one hand

Special
-4 penalty on grapple checks
If your arm is healed, regenerated, replaced, or otherwise cured, this flaw is immediately removed along with a feat

No depth perception
you have lost sight in one eye, the entire eye itself, or otherwise have no depth perception.

Effect
You take a -1 penalty on attack rolls

Special
If your eye is healed, regenerated, replaced, or otherwise cured in a fashion that gives the character depth perception, this flaw is immediately removed along with a feat.

Grendath’s Curse
For whatever reason you have the worst luck, as if Jolly old Grendath himself has spat at you, or perhaps you are just so unlucky that it seems that way
[FONT=&quot]
Prerequisite
You do not worship Grendath
Effect
The DM may, once per in character day, repeat one of your d20 rolls; the second roll applies, even if it is better than the original roll.[/FONT]

Scott DeWar · Jan 9, 2011

A knickle's worth of free advice;

give as much informaion as possible so as to require the least amout of looking up by the powers that be. And never assume anything. ok, that was two knickles.

Zerith · Jan 9, 2011

[FONT=&quot]well, I supplied a link to a web page that has all the information and is from a website that, from what I can judge, is respected by the En world staff.

I'm not trying to come off as condescending, but at the same time I, in no way, wish to impress that hey’re my words; but, in retrospect, I could have included both the link and the information from the page in a [sblock]n as well as a small disclaimer, and I think I’ll do so in the future. :3

Thanks for the advice ^_^[/FONT]

orsal · Jan 10, 2011

OK, there are many parts to this proposal:
(A) Adopt the Flaw mechanics.
(B) Approve all the flaws in the d20srd.com "Variant Rules" section (which I believe come from Unearthed Arcana).
(C) Approve the 4 new flaws Zerith has posted.

We can approve or reject these in many combinations -- in regard to both (B) and (C) we might cherry-pick.

Here are my initial musings:

(A) I like the idea of flaws. I like the additional flexibility it gives to character creation, and I really like the possibility of characters who are noticeably disadvantaged compared to some baseline in a certain regard. I am inclined to vote Yes to this part, but I will wait for further discussion (since I've never played this rule before) before writing that in yellow.

One amendment I'd like to suggest. The published version says

www.d20.srd.org said:
A player may select up to two flaws when creating a character. After 1st level, a character cannot take on additional flaws unless the game master specifically allows it

That of course assumes a conventional game, with a single authoritative GM. For a Living World, I'd suggest deleting the part I bolded. I think it's simplest just to allow flaws only at 1st level. (The alternative would be to replace "Game Master" with "Characte Judges".)

(B) I'm also inclined to approve all the ones listed at www.d20srd.org. UA is generally a well-play-tested and well-balanced source, and I don't see any problems there. Again, I'll give any skeptics a chance to persuade me otherwise before colouring my Yes yellow.

(C) In regard to your homebrew flaws, I want to think about them (and discuss them) more. In particular, are the balanced? Opinions welcome.

Zerith · Jan 10, 2011

Honestly, I've yet to play a single game of DnD as of yet, but I go headlong into things and am a customization fanatic; Standard is just too boring XD

And as for balance:

-Lame Leg is a very large penalty, but it can be, wholly, avoided by being mounted.

A mounted halfling fighter(or any other small/smaller race and class that can fight at full strength while mounted) could gain a feat for almost nothing with it; the mount moves for them and then could even get a mount related feat to further emphasize their ability and because of their small stature, and their mount's relatively low stature, they could ride around even indoors mostly unhindered; and if their mount was also small, they could just move around completely unhindered indoor.
That is the largest abuse of Lame leg I can see.

This flaw most definitely needs to be taken with a grain of salt, in retrospect perhaps it should have some ride check penalties tacked on to avoid this abuse; never ridden myself, but I do think riders use their legs while riding more then we might think.
(note: Slow, a UA flaw, is in the same boat as this flaw, both are completely sidestep by being mounted. So while they're large drawbacks, they are not something that can’t be worked around)

-Lame/Amputated Arm

This a relatively Massive drawback, Huge, the worst thing a combative character could chose to have; but it is more accommodating for a mage, or other ‘noncombatant’. that said, I can’t think of no class that can just shrug off losing an arm, if nothing else, their stave must be put down to use a potion, there is no getting around this flaw, it’s game changing.

-No depth perception

This one, if you ask me, is perfectly balanced: it’s the mean of noncombatant and shaky. And is possibly even more balanced then either, a ranger could get noncombatant and keep their ranged attack roles melee ability or a barbarian could get shaky and keep their melee and just lose some ranged ability. It’s the same penalty as either, but it is spread out over both ranged and melee.

-Grendath’s Curse

I think this one is balanced, but I must ad the salt, this flaw needs a GM who will use it to ruin the player’s day at the worst possible time. If a GM is going to be playing nice and not using this flaw readily, and only if it harms the character, it’s broken. But if the GM has fun with it at the character’s expanse? Then it is nothing to be taken lightly

-Addon: When you to only allow flaws at level 1, I asume you mean to maintin the limit of two.

covaithe · Jan 10, 2011

The simulationist in me is slightly put off by the idea that regenerating a missing eye causes you to somehow lose a feat.

But, mostly, I'm posting to subscribe, to keep an eye on this thread.

Scott DeWar · Jan 10, 2011

wait, are you saing that you have no depth perception, so you wan to keep your4 good eye on this thread?

on an aside, I noticed the no depth perception flaw says:

If your eye is healed, regenerated, replaced, or otherwise cured in a fashion that gives the character depth perception, this flaw is immediately removed along with a feat.

how will it be deturmined which feat will be lost? The last feat to be gained perhaps?

Zerith · Jan 10, 2011

[MENTION=3565]Scott[/MENTION]:
that's kinda hard to say Scott, it might have granted toughness, and gaining depth perception would not change how durable you are, accuracy with a weapon is an other story though. because of not knowing what kind of feat the flaw will grant any given character, I Don't know. Personally I think it would come down to the character's players and the Character Judges, with the Judges having the finnal say.
(Alternatively the flaw could be changed to poor depth perception and then both eyes could be intact, might have to change it now that I think of that....)

[MENTION=46559]covaithe[/MENTION]:
Gaining depth perception could realy through off your aim and thus how well you fight, how ever, this is a balance issues only; if the penalty is avoided, the bonus should be avoided as well.

Possible retake on the flaw in question:

Poor/No depth perception
you have poor depth perception; perhaps you are just uncoordinated or somthing dos not click right in your brain, maybe you simply lost sight in one eye, the entire eye itself, or otherwise have no depth perception.

Effect
You take a -1 penalty on attack rolls

Scott DeWar · Jan 11, 2011

I was concerned that if you had a feat taken away that was a prerequisite for a string f others, that could really complicate things. If it is take from the latest, It may not bea prerequi.

For the record, i understand the depth petrception problem. I have had eye issues with me all my life.

as for Covaith, He might be making a funny about keeping an eye on the thread.

covaithe · Jan 11, 2011

I think it's possible to come up with justifications for why a sudden change in your vision, even if it's an improvement, could cause you to lose specialized skills at certain things such as fighting, but not all feats are about that. Skimming the feat list, here are some feats that I think it would be silly to lose if you regained an eye:

blind-fight
endurance
extra turning
Great fortitude
improved familiar
skill focus: knowledge(arcana)

You get the idea.

It's probably better, at least as a first pass, to say that flaws just can't be removed by any means (short of a wish/miracle). Don't people who play with flaws usually have some kind of clause to that effect? I've never played a game with flaws in it, myself.