do you allow flaws?

[Nine Hands]

I use a system of Complications which can include anything from character background stuff, to personality quirks, to bad reputations, to enemies. Its a pretty versatile system I swiped from Fuzion. In exchange the characters can buy stuff (skills, extra action dice, extra uses of class abilities, etc). All in all its a pretty useful system that we even ported over to Star Gate.

 

[Kelleris]

-- snip --

Hmm, interesting points. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I am sure I don't want to type up why right at the moment. I'm tired.

Instead, might I ask what you think of UA's traits? Basically, a bonus balanced by a closely-linked penalty. Anyone else who dislikes flaws feel free to answer.

My view is influenced by the fact that I'd rather everyone had more feats, actually. I just love the little buggers. So, I as a DM am willing to allow them because the extra variety and definition in my player's characters is worth the extra effort on my part, which is admittedly not much after the approval/disapproval stage.

And before anyone asks, I don't like the idea of just giving out more feats (except possibly in lieu of treasure), partly because it unbalances the game without a corresponding penalty and partly because I really think the glaring weaknesses represented by flaws are fun to play with.

It does lead to some tricky situations, though. In a game I just started, I am debating whether or not to take the Individualist flaw, from Dragon #329. The flaw inflicts penalties on a character for using weapons or armor that he has not crafted himself. I've got Craft (armorsmithing) and Craft (weaponsmithing) already, and intend to only use my personal (eventually masterwork and exotically-materialed) armor and weapons anyway. If I take the flaw, I am effectively getting something back for something I was already planning to do for roleplaying reasons. However, those roleplaying reasons did lead to me taking sub-optimal skills, and it would be really nice to have some numbers reflecting my character's mindset to look at when the DM inevitably randomly rolls a set of mithral full plate +5 of heavy fortification into a treasure hoard. So is it a fair flaw to take, or not? It's a quandary.

 

[Khaalis]

Just to throw in a late $0.01 worth here... I personally like and allow the flaws system. I only allow a maximum of 2 flaws however. Firstly, any more than that I find tends to overly gimp a character. Yes flaws are all good RP, but if your character is prevented from being the effective hero they are supposed to be (the core point to the game in its most simplified form), then it is no longer good RP. Secondly, the advantage of more than 2 extra feats can get messy. Granted I have no issues with well designed (ie: optimized) characters, so extra feats has never been an issue. As a long time DM, I feel that there is nothing a party can design for characters that a creative DM cannot present a challenge for. In my personal opinion, if the DM believes the only way they can challenge a group is to gimp them by massively restricting their options, such as core only rules, or banning half of the core rules that exist... then they arent really doing their job. JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Zweihänder]

Flaws go with some games (Hunter: The Reckoning being a good example), but nothing I've ever DMed. I don't allow them in my games.

 

[Li Shenron]

I dont allow flaw (that grant bonus feats), but I do allow the Traits from the UA.

Incidentally, I had the initial impression too that UA Traits were much better than UA Flaws. But later I changed my mind. Traits seem innocuous because they're tiny bonuses, but also their associated penalties are generally too easy to just ignore. Instead, Flaws give you a good bonus (free feat) for a terrible penalty that you cannot ignore, except in a couple of cases (which I would not allow in fact).

Way too many feats given out to characters anyway IMO.

You gotta be kiddin'

 

[Li Shenron]

I only know UA system of Flaws, you have seen a hundred times more books than me, so I'm sure you know much better systems for this than the UA one. However I don't find the UA a terrible system, with some caveats.

To me, "with appropriate DM oversight" is a way of saying "it's a hassle for the DM."

Such a warning doesn't mean that much to me. It is there probably because the variant "takes away" something to the PC in order to provide the benefit, and so it's a heavier modification compared to just letting a PC take a feat or spell.

But badly-designed feats or spells have caused me "hassles" before, even without that warning. Actually I wish there had been a warning sometimes

First off, flaws grant bonus feats. That's a very exploitable loophole. Many feat chains are constructed assuming you only get so many a level, and some PrC entry requirements are similar. Handing out bonus feats tends to break those feat chains and PrCs.

Right... first of all it's a "loophole" only if you allow players to take as many Flaws as they want, and much worse if you allow more than one flaws system to be exploited by the same character.

I allow characters to take flaws, but only one has been interested (tho he's thinking of it to happen as a consequence of adventuring, so it hasn't taken it yet). Let's start with one and see how it works... i'm not sure if I would allow the second anyway. But with such a low number it should hardly unbalance the game.

I disagree however about the feat chains. If a feat is designed not to be taken earlier than a certain level in the game, it has a BAB requirement, not a number of feats required. Because:
(1) fighters could always manage to complete a feat chain in less than half time as anyone else, if the only requirements are previous feats
(2) if a designer's target is to let a feat be available at a certain level, reaching that target by planning a series of requisite feat is just more complicated as requiring a BAB or base ST for example

Same applies to PrCl entry minimum level. Some PrCls require many feats to qualify, but that's just because they want Fighter to be nearly the only to qualify, which isn't IMO a good thing since the start.

mechanical advantages for roleplay disadvantages.

I very much agree with you that this should not be used in D&D. RP quirks should just be free, and bad quirks may turn out not be real disadvantages after all. UA Flaws aren't very much roleplay disadvantages however, they are very solid mechanical penalties.

But of course they have their own flaws (oops... ). The Flaw which gives you a melee/ranged attack penalty is a very bad idea. A wizard does NOT have a penalty at all from that, unless he uses a lot of touch/ray spells. It's too easy to get the feat for free. Same thing for a Flaw that gives you a penalty to a stat of choice, when one could just drop it on the dump stat.

However a Flaw which gives you an unavoidable penalty is fine for me, such as:

- less HP per HD
- a -4 to one saving throw
- a -8 (IIRC) initiative penalty
- large penalties on Listen & Spot
- an unnamed AC penalty

Some less than the others, but all of these apply to rolls or stats that you cannot avoid to use, and therefore they are a price you're definitely going to pay early or late.

some flaws fall into this trap. The basic idea is to give you a penalty at what you weren't good at anyway. You weren't going to be needing that ability anyway. In a game like D&D, with a team environment, these types of flaws are not flaws.

I admit this is something I haven't though much before Usually I was more afraid of players taking a flaw in something they're more good than what they think they need.

IMXP however no one keeps his HP or AC to a minimum just because they're "not good anyway". And e.g. it's PC with a low ST that takes Great Fortitude/LReflexes/Iron Will. It could be possible for a real min-maxer to try this trick, but I wonder if it's really worth for just one feat (btw, notice that all UA flaws give a penalty which is twice as big as the bonus given by a feat to the same thing).

 

[Scion]

Interesting, but a few points strike me as odd.

To me, "with appropriate DM oversight" is a way of saying "it's a hassle for the DM."

Everything in the game works this way however. Everytime someone wants to pick a combination of feats or a new spell or a class or pretty much anything there is always a chance that something happens that the dm doesnt want to happen.

Having more character options always makes for more work for the dm, but that isnt necissarily a bad thing

First off, flaws grant bonus feats. That's a very exploitable loophole. Many feat chains are constructed assuming you only get so many a level, and some PrC entry requirements are similar. Handing out bonus feats tends to break those feat chains and PrCs.

I am not sure if there are any prcs that having extra feats early on would break. If it does then the prc is more of a problem.

After all, most/all prcs have multiple requirements and generally being able to get one sooner still means that you have to wait for the rest (BAB requirement, skill requirements, save requirements, spell requirements, feat requirements which also have some/all of these and can only be taken at certain levels or higher anyway).



Also, if a feat or flaw grants a mechanical advantage for a roleplaying disadvantage then it is poorly made to begin with. Dont use the poorly made stuff

1) You want bennies? You give up other bennies to get them.

That seems like the whole point to me. You give up something (gain a flaw) and get a beanie (feat). If the flaw is not 'tough enough' for your liking then make it tougher.

Remember though, the flaw doesnt have to necissarily come up all of the time, or even often, just now and then it definately has to be an issue.


It sounds like you have experience with a few different flaw-like systems, some will be better than others of course. But it also sounds like you know what lines not to cross, so I am not sure why the flaws would be any more of a problem than anything else in the system. I am still trying to figure this out in case it might cause problems in any games I run in the future.

 

[Psion]

Instead, might I ask what you think of UA's traits?

Well, I don't think they are as "gameable" in that you just can't pick the benefit you want for the drawback you think will affect you the least. But they do fall into the second "classic trap" I mention with regard to disad mechanics: they do tend to give you penalties to things that you weren't going to be doing anyways. Some are pretty good general penalties, others not so much.

 

[Psion]

I only know UA system of Flaws, you have seen a hundred times more books than me, so I'm sure you know much better systems for this than the UA one. However I don't find the UA a terrible system, with some caveats.

To be fair, "per-incident compensation" is a fairly new advent in RPGs and are just making their way into more popular RPGs. The classic "up front point farm" style disadvantage has been with us for a long time, but I think that in general, people are seeing common behaviors behind players which are slowly pushing more and more designers toward the per-incident model.

Such a warning doesn't mean that much to me. It is there probably because the variant "takes away" something to the PC in order to provide the benefit,

But my point is that what it takes away is often highly variable in actual value, and players will tend to pick the ones that they feel have the least impact on their character.

But badly-designed feats or spells have caused me "hassles" before, even without that warning. Actually I wish there had been a warning sometimes

This is true, but I think when a mechanic causes problems when used with other mechanics that are simply following a general design principle of the game (in this case "feats deeper in the feat tree are more powerful), you set yourself up for more widespread problems.

And, as long as we are mentioning badly designed character options, to me the biggest badly designed ones that people complain about (and I agree with) are those that give you too many benifits without sufficient or meaningful cost. We're in the same boat.

Right... first of all it's a "loophole" only if you allow players to take as many Flaws as they want,

Even one additional feat could net you a feat in a feat chain intended for a higher level character.

I disagree however about the feat chains. If a feat is designed not to be taken earlier than a certain level in the game, it has a BAB requirement, not a number of feats required. Because:
(1) fighters could always manage to complete a feat chain in less than half time as anyone else, if the only requirements are previous feats

A fighter is a component of the core system. Any d20 fantasy product should take into account how many feats a fighter has. The same cannot be said of other systems that add feats which are not part of the core system. If you make an add on mechanic that does not do its best to forsee problems, you are pretty much asking for problems.

And the flaw mechanic is. Asking for problems, that is.

(2) if a designer's target is to let a feat be available at a certain level, reaching that target by planning a series of requisite feat is just more complicated as requiring a BAB or base ST for example

True. A designer can do that. But again, a designer should not have to cannot possibly consider all the non-core add ons out there that break core assumptions.

(Frex, you assume BAB is safe. H:ROE has classes with higher than a fighter's BAB. That's a bad thing, too.)

 

[Psion]

Everything in the game works this way however.

Of course it does.

And Kelleris points out that he likes feats. That may be a good enough reason to put up with the potential issues that arrise from using the system. He's willing to "pay the premium" as it were.

Many, many issues with regard to gaming boil down to decisions of cost versus benefit. The flaw mechanic isn't useless, by a long shot. If you really dig feats, and you want to add flavor to characters with flaws, it may be just the ticket.

But if what you want is a general disadvantage mechanic for d20, I beleive there are better options. (FWIW, I have pitched the idea of repackaging the Vigilance/d20 Haven disad mechanic for fantasy to a publisher. He liked the idea. Now if I can find the time to do it...)

Everytime someone wants to pick a combination of feats or a new spell or a class or pretty much anything there is always a chance that something happens that the dm doesnt want to happen.

True, but as I mention above, when you have a mechanic like this that tends to create problems with feats that are built using the assumptions behind the core mechanics, your chances of having problems increases manifold.

Having more character options always makes for more work for the dm, but that isnt necissarily a bad thing

Of course not; I would be the last person in the world to suggest that more options, in itself, is a bad thing. But I do beleive that the options that you do include in a game should be scrutinized for how good a contribution it makes to the game.

I am not sure if there are any prcs that having extra feats early on would break. If it does then the prc is more of a problem.

I disagree. If a PrC is designed such that you can enter it at 6th level, and restrains that by the fact that you can only get that selection of feats at 6th level based on the core classes, then the designer is fairly safe in assuming that it is appropraite to give entering characters abilities comensurate to 6th level characters. You cut this down to 2nd-4th level by being over-handy with bonus feats, I think that it is the flaw mechanic to blame here, not the PrC. The PrC was just being designed with the core rules in mind.

After all, most/all prcs have multiple requirements and generally being able to get one sooner still means that you have to wait for the rest (BAB requirement, skill requirements, save requirements, spell requirements, feat requirements which also have some/all of these and can only be taken at certain levels or higher anyway).

You assume it has those.

MAny PrCs do. When it comes to feat chains, the situation is stickier. Many feat chains merely build on earlier feats in the chain.

Also, if a feat or flaw grants a mechanical advantage for a roleplaying disadvantage then it is poorly made to begin with. Dont use the poorly made stuff

Right. Poorly made stuff. Like the flaw mechanic.

That seems like the whole point to me. You give up something (gain a flaw) and get a beanie (feat).

This is what I call "defecit spending" you can't trade benefits you don't have, so you sort of manufacture them. Many times what the flaw takes away from you is not meaningful or may never come up in a game. The two pools that seem to get dipped into here are, again, RP disads and straight up penalties, which tend to be difficult to design in a way that players can't snake around. This is, IMO, better addressed by per-incident compensation. It only gives you something if it actually comes up in a game.