2 for 1 flaw. -5 to ranged attacks? Balanced?

[DreamChaser]

Well, if he had chosen to be a ranger, sorcerer, or someone else who had ranged attacks on their minds, I'm sure the flaw would be reversed. 2 feats for a -5 to melee attacks.

Moon-Lancer is just using the Flaws system (from Unearthed Arcana), with some House Rules (the 2 feats for a -5, instead of 1 feat for a -2). The Flaws system can be abused like the way you mentioned, penalizing something your character won't use much. However, when situations come up when that "thing" is needed, you're boned.

I think the -5 penalty for 2 feats is fine, and while I wouldn't smile sinisterly if I was Moon-Lancer's DM, I would certainly make the penalty felt when certain situations came up.

Cheers

Yea, I'm familiar with the system and the potential for abuse...which is why any Flaws are concept dependant. A barbarian taking a flaw that penalizes knowledge, craft, or performance skills is a cop-out. I wouldn't allow it. Same with a wizard taking a penalty to melee attacks.

I would not allow this application of the Flaw for a monk. Period. I would allow it for a ranger or sorcerer.

DC

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I have a hard time conceiving WHY a character would have -5 on ranged attacks. Surely the -2 version is more reasonable. At 4th level, you will be worse at ranged attacks than a commoner.

I have been trying to come up with a good in story explanation, and i think I have finely come up with a solution. I’m going to have the character be slightly epileptic, and as he concentrates he sways slightly to a music only he can hear (kiloren-fey). This helps him be a dervish (similar to a drunken master in my mind) but this is devastating on his ranged attacks, because he cant sit still like other creatures.

The flaws system is actually accounting for the fact that players will pick the flaws that have less of an impact on the character and will pick the most optimum feet.

Now my logic was that -4 would be two -2 flaws plus -1 because your not supposed to take the same flaw twice, so maybe it should be a -6 altogether, with the extra -2 being a good balance to allow the same flaw twice, because it is the same coast of the original flaw itself. So you’re adding 3 flaws for two feats that are really the same flaw. I think I’m going to clean up this sentence later. ug.

the dm said -5 and that’s what we agreed on, but I think I’m going to make it a -6 so I feel better, plus that math seems to fit a -6. Maybe that’s just an illusion in my mind.

really if you think about it, thier is another feat that gives a -1 to ac and thier is another one that lets you take a -4 on listen and spot checks. so is an extra -4 to ranged attack (or -3) equal to -4 on listen and spot or a -1 to ac? Its really perspective. I think equal. Others may not, and thats ok.

Thanks for the replies everyone. More comments are also welcome.


thanks

 

[Squire James]

I don't do flaws at all, but if I did there would be no "double flaws" at all. It's too easy to min-max them to death. I would perhaps agree if the "double flaw" applied immediately, but the second bonus feat didn't occur until 3 levels later.

 

[pawsplay]

Yea, I'm familiar with the system and the potential for abuse...which is why any Flaws are concept dependant. A barbarian taking a flaw that penalizes knowledge, craft, or performance skills is a cop-out. I wouldn't allow it. Same with a wizard taking a penalty to melee attacks.

I would not allow this application of the Flaw for a monk. Period. I would allow it for a ranger or sorcerer.

DC

Agreed. A monk or a melee focused fighter should be limited to the usual one feat version of this flaw.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I don't do flaws at all, but if I did there would be no "double flaws" at all. It's too easy to min-max them to death. I would perhaps agree if the "double flaw" applied immediately, but the second bonus feat didn't occur until 3 levels later.

thats pritty funny, becuse i would like that too, it would let me use that feat on something that requires a specific level or bab. I would be very open to that idea.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The flaws are balanced by the fact that they will hurt your character at some point in play so that the hurt equals the help you gained from the feat (or feats in this case) that you gained from the flaw.

This is ideally, generally the feats will end up helping more than the flaw hurts but it should be close.

If you never intend to do ranged attacks and your DM never puts you into such a situation where you need to use ranged attacks (or it would be much more beneficial to attack at range than your other options) then this is definitley broken.