Anti-feats?

[Katerek]

Hey, if you took the Psionics options you didnt need anything else, so full blind deaf mute quadraplegics were the way to go, it gave you more points for psionics. I usually through in obesity as well just for fun.

Then I would be this big floating (TK) ball of lard with the mental powers of a thousand Rasputins!

 

[I'm A Banana]

3e was designed with the idea that disadvantages can be abused and are fairly unbalanced.

So, instead, everything has a "cost." You need to get a certain score to get a certain thing.

The problem with disadvantages is that they're not universal, and they're stackable. A wizard probably wouldn't mind having a feat that gave them a minus to weapon attacks and damage in exchange for a free metamagic feat -- they're not going to hit often or do a lot of damage anyway. So their gain is greater than their sacrifice, for that character. If he can do that over and over again, it becomes quite unbalanced.

Again, something like Blindness may be a severe disadvangate for a normal character. But then you, say, take a character that has blindsight and give him blindness, and whoop-dee-doo...you've compensated for it. Or take a psionicist and make him blind, and he suffers less, but gets the same reward.

It depends on the campaign, too. Being Hideous in a campaign based on a dungeon-crawl isn't going to matter too much...most people will take it, because it provides an advantage for very little disadvantage. being Hideous in a game based on intrigue and politics is going to cripple your character -- people will take things that will give them physical penalties for social bonues, instead.

It doesn't work too well, thusly. 3e was designed to be a cost system. Meet the minimum points, and you can choose one option, or another one, both of which are about equally as powerful (in theory). Start inserting diadvantages, and you'll have a complex stew of blech.

 

[Balgus]

a book called EVIL has stuff like that too.

You get penalties for skills, but benefits elsewhere. Like claws for hands. you get penalized for all your people skills, but you get a unarmed strike. And also, there are 4 arems, you sprout two extra arms (no multiattack) but you have to pay extra for armor- as no one makes anything your size.

there are more stuff like that.

 

[Bastoche]

I always hated the idea of getting disadvantages to gain more advantages. For any systems. I just hate it.

 

[Fenes 2]

But taking flaws for style... I remember a Bubblegum Campaign with Shadowrun rules where each character had a couple major flaws (without getting compensation). A load of fun resulted from those quirks.

 

[Mallus]

I'm fondly remembering my first Champinions character, made way back in high school, with her Code For Killing {any act of violence she comitted had to end in her targets death...}

 

[Pielorinho]

On a slightly different note, my group tries to include minor disadvantages with many magic items the PCs find. Bracers of dexterity might work by making the user extra-jittery: you get a bonus to initiative and AC, but no bonus to ranged or finessed attacks, and you suffer a penalty to sense motive checks, because you tend to be paranoid. Or a PC who overuses his Pearl of Power, using it every day, constantly using it, might find himself repeating himself when he talks, saying the same thing over and --

you get the idea

Daniel

 

[Tiama'at]

In general I'm reading this thread and all I take fromit is that if your DM is a complete and utter milksop of course you can abuse any drawback system.

The key is the miraculous ability of the DM (with a spine) to suggest alternative, say no, or in extreme cases, tear up your chaarcter sheet, soak the paper ribbons in gasoline and set fire to your PHB while singing showtunes.

A drawbacks system is just as open (and closed) to abuse as any other open system in the game. If my DM allows me to roll all my ability scores using 10d100x5, and make my own prestige classes (let's see, how about 2d12 Hit Points per level, 5 free feats per level, spell progression, best saves and BAB rates, and my only qualifier is 'having seen myself naked at some point in my life').

People who complain about abuse of drawbacks tend to be those who cannot say no, or sat in a game where the DM could not say no.

Play such a game with a DM capable of saying 'no' and doing so often, or in a game with drawbacks where the DM makes the characters based on your narrative descriptions and see how "broken" flaw/defect/drawback/anti-feats can be.

BTW, for the Blindsight/Blind charcater - simply reword the 'Blind' anti-feat to say "you cannot use your primary perception sense - commonly sight".

- Ma'at

 

[Asathas]

Swashbuckling Adventures did it right...

The "anti-feats" in SA were done about as right as you can get. First off, you're restricted to taking at most one (they call it a hubris if you're good, flaw if you're evil). Second, 90% of them are based on role-playing... for example, in our game we have a firbolg holy warrior who's attitude isn't that different from the Ghost of Christmas-Present in the Christmas Carol. He took a hubris (which gained him an additional feat) that basically represents the fact that he likes to have a good time. Once per day, the DM OR ANY PLAYER, can activate his hubris to get him to slack off and go have a good time. While this doesn't sound very paladin-like, consider that his deity is one of traveling, wine, women, and song.

Another character in the group has a hubris that doesn't allow him to leave someone behind in danger. Another, and god help the player that gives this kind of tool to the DM, has a hubris that makes him reckless and can be activated by the DM or any player once per game day.

The villain's flaws are just as imaginative and really add a lot of flavor to the game.

They do add an element of humor to the game so they may not be for you if you run a very serious game but even then, there's some pretty straight-laced hubrises and flaws in there.

 

[maddman75]

Played with them in S|<!llZ & P0w3rs and don't want to see them return.

The problem is you will end up with characters getting boosted for what they already do. A paladin that has fanatacism, a barbarian that has Bad Tempered, etc. And then he uses these RP disadvantages to gain mechanical advantages.

If I were to implement such a system, it would likely only be usable to grain RP benefits and hinderances.