do you allow flaws?

[Scion]

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.

If it was designed to be entered at 6th and the selection of feats was the limiting factor then at least one of those feats must require some factor for higher levels. Otherwise the designer is 'also' assuming race since humans get a bonus feat at first.

in any event, level dependent factors are a much more stable force. If the designer picked something that was not actually concrete and someone finds a way to get into it sooner then good for them! I have no problem with people entering prc's as soon as they can. There are a few different ones around that are designed to be entered before level 5 and I have no problem with that.

In any event, are there even any prcs like this that would cause problems by getting into them a level or two sooner? If there are I still think it is a problem with the prc and not the other mechanics.. after all, if it was made properly in the first place (actually requireing something that would be level 6 and later, which feats are not necissarily in that category, they are a soft requirement unless they have hard requirements on them) then there wouldnt be a problem.

You assume it has those.

Of course! Because feat chains tend to have hard requirements which put them at higher levels. Even a simple BAB +1 requirement is enough to shut down feat chains for many beginning characters. or needing 5+ ranks of a skill. or a number of other things.

still though, which feat chains would break a character wide open to have early on?

I actually can only find a few feat chains which the character might be able to get, and of those I would love for a character to be able to be a mounted combat character for real early on Maybe one of his flaws could be that anytime he is not on his mount he suffers a -4 penalty to all rolls.

Seems like a chance to really make the character more like the character that the player wants to me more than anything else.

Right. Poorly made stuff. Like the flaw mechanic.

The flaw mechanic itself seems fine. It seems more like there is a problem with various other parts of the system not following the system properly (soft costs rather than hard costs) and a lack of appropriate penalties for the flaw (too lax).

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.

The penalty should not come up anymore often than any other feat has a chance to. If it is coming up all of the time then it is likely too strong, unless the all the time effect isnt that bad. The feat for -8 to initiative seems to me like a borderline. it comes up very often, but that is ok, but the penalty is incredibly massive, likely too massive. I'd rather have it be smaller and effect a few other things.

But again, someone without that flaw has a much higher modifier than the guy with the flaw, so he definately gave 'something' up.

What is 'meaningful' enough is very subjective however. If the penalty is too big then the player would be a fool to choose it, even if it was in character. If it is minor and will never come up then it isnt worth as much as the feat that is gained. It is a balancing act that is complicated, but then so is all sorts of balance for the entire game.


I'd like to see what sort of combos you feel are overpowered to have however. Feat chains and prc's that I might be overlooking

 

[Jaws]

in 2nd Ed we used the "Players Option: Skills and Powers"

And that's when I stopped playing D&D until 3.0 came out.

So you can figure out that I chose no flaws ever again in my D&D.


Peace and smiles

j.

 

[Psion]

If it was designed to be entered at 6th and the selection of feats was the limiting factor then at least one of those feats must require some factor for higher levels. Otherwise the designer is 'also' assuming race since humans get a bonus feat at first.

Quote possibly (I have seen it, esp. where fighter-based classes are concerned, since being human might only buy you one level), but not necessarily.

But the designer might also specify the race or allow a racial ability to fill the slot of a prerequisite.

That said, if someone wants to game the system by getting a leg up on feat chains, they are going to pick a human AND take flaws. Not just one or the other.

in any event, level dependent factors are a much more stable force. If the designer picked something that was not actually concrete and someone finds a way to get into it sooner then good for them!

I agree picking something more stable would be better. But going on the assumptions of the core rules is much less of a flaw than de-stabilizing them. And I doubt many designers are going to go out of their way tacking on BAB requirements just to satisfy a highly optional and variant rule-set. They are going to write their material to the core. And again, they should, because trying to guestimate what some designer is going to throw in is an excercise in divination.

The designers of the new material, OTOH, have the benefit of seeing what the core assumption are. The shame is on them for throwing them out of whack, not on those who assume the core holds true.

still though, which feat chains would break a character wide open to have early on?

That's a loaded question, because there are dozens of books out there with feat chains of their own design that follow the core assumptions.

I also don't particularly care for your assumption that it is going to "break a character wide open", since I didn't attach that level of histrionics to my disdain for the flaw sysem. It's just an escalation of power. Some are going to buy into the system figuring that the players don't get that much benefit, because they theoretically trade on feats worth of benefits for one feats worth of flaws, where the flaw never grows in significance (at least none of the ones I can think of will), but the character will be one feat ahead on a feat chain every step of the way... allowing access to bigger and bigger feats.

That said, it seems to me that getting some of the sudden metamagics a little early might be something I would be loath to deal with.

The penalty should not come up anymore often than any other feat has a chance to.

And in that breath, you are making my case for me. How much of a benefit it is varies highly. And if the GM doesn't have a way to exploit it handy (or simply has other things to deal with) it slips through the cracks. This is why per incident compensation is superior. When it does not come up, the player does not reap the benefits. When it does, he does. Which is a marked improvement.

 

[Scion]

That said, if someone wants to game the system by getting a leg up on feat chains, they are going to pick a human AND take flaws. Not just one or the other.

Cool, more power to them

I agree picking something more stable would be better. But going on the assumptions of the core rules is much less of a flaw than de-stabilizing them. And I doubt many designers are going to go out of their way tacking on BAB requirements just to satisfy a highly optional and variant rule-set. They are going to write their material to the core. And again, they should, because trying to guestimate what some designer is going to throw in is an excercise in divination.

This isnt even necissary to the extent you seem to mean, it is something that is 'already' done with most/all prcs to begin with.

Having a set rank needed in a specific skill is the easiest way to require a certain level and it is done 'very' often. There is no 'tacking' on to any degree. If you want it to take at least level 7 then saying, '10 ranks of skill X' fits this perfectly and you dont even need any other prereqs, but others are good for different reasons.

Using this sort of guideline, which they already do, then it doesnt matter what other sort of suppliments you are using (unless of course something allows gaining more max ranks than is normally possible, but then if the dm is letting something like that in then they have to realize there will be some issues here and there).

I do assume that all material I would be willing to use is well written or I will rewrite it better. I assume this because it is what I do. Given this if something is poorly written then I ignore it, because if it is poorly written or thought out in one way it may be in others as well. To some degree I think every experienced dm does this, so the assumption should be valid over a wide range.

If I see a prc that requires: 58 hp, bunny animal companion, +4.5 BAB, and/or other randomness (bunny is random because I have never seen a stat block for it, feel free to put in any other animal in this place that you feel is silly) then I know to be careful about it. Poorly written material should be avoided or modified.

That's a loaded question, because there are dozens of books out there with feat chains of their own design that follow the core assumptions.

But then your arguement led to my question.

If it isnt going to be overpowered then there I dont see any reason to dissallow it.

Now, like I said, I havent used it. However, there was a character I made online that 'only' worked if he was allowed to take flaws (that meshed directly with what he was going to be doing anyway yes, but he was already taking massive penalties, the flaw just made it mechanical rather than a poor choice of character). As such, I definately feel that there are times when it 'could' be warranted, or even needed.

If one is worried about people taking advantage that is an important worry, but it can happen with every part of the system. Either you let the players know what limits not to go past or you let them run rampant. Either can be fun depending on the group. Dissallowing it just because someone might go over the line (assuming that the line was drawn clearly, imaginary lines arent helpful) seems strange.


As for the sudden metamagics, they are poorly balanced to begin with. Just because something else makes them potentially even less balanced (though I dont feel that it does directly) doesnt mean much

And in that breath, you are making my case for me. How much of a benefit it is varies highly.

If you really mean this then you should likely dissallow feats entirely as my arguement holds true for 'any' feat, no matter what it is.

If the flaw is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly.
If the feat is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly.

They go hand in hand. I will say it again because it holds true no matter if we are talking about feats or flaws or anything else in the system: The penalty should not come up anymore often than any other feat has a chance to.

And if the GM doesn't have a way to exploit it handy (or simply has other things to deal with) it slips through the cracks. This is why per incident compensation is superior. When it does not come up, the player does not reap the benefits. When it does, he does. Which is a marked improvement.

Note again the character I mentioned earlier.

Any attack rolls that he makes are at a -4 penalty, no matter what they are for, he hates causing violence.
Any time he directly injures or tries to injure someone he becomes sickened and must spend a full round action and make a will save to lose this condition.

2 flaws, 2 feats. He was already going to roleplay doing these anyway, it merely gave him the chance to have the mechanics laid out properly.

So, when would the 'per incident' happen? If he had the choice to make an attack but didnt? well, that is basically every round of combat. He would gain a huge amount of whatever benefit he was allowed all of the time. If he was forced to attack when he didnt want to? That would basically never happen, so he would always be living with the penalty but never get any benefit.

Neither of those seem like good solutions, so how would you handle it?

 

[Kelleris]

Scion - That sounds similar to my dilemma with the Individualist flaw.

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.

What about another permutation of the flaw mechanic that I've seen, flaws with prerequistes? For instance, in Dragon 324, there's a flaw for Bards called Fool. It removes the inspire courage, inspire competence, inspire greatness, and inspire heroics bardic music abilities from your character's abilities. It also requires access to bardic music to take, so it's guaranteed to at least limit the options of the character, even if the player has no intention of using bardic music.

 

[Scion]

Scion - That sounds similar to my dilemma with the Individualist flaw.

What does that one do?

 

[Kelleris]

What does that one do?

I mentioned it a bit upthread. It gives you a penalty on using weapons and wearing armor that you did not craft yourself.

My character has the Craft (weaponsmithing) and Craft (armorsmithing) skills, and very good RP reasons to not use any armor or weapons other than those he makes for himself. He is unfortunately not a caster, but increasingly masterworked and exotically-materialed items will work through mid-levels, and I can try to scrounge up commissions after that.

So, in one sense, I'm getting a "free" feat for something I was going to do anyway. On the other hand, a character who dumps 10 ranks in various Craft skills at 1st level and refuses to avail himself of captured gear is weakening himself to begin with, and a feat for that seems fair. I'd also like some actual penalties written in mechanical stone, as it were, to look at when I'm turning down the powerful magical sword or armor we've just acquired. I think I'll end up taking the flaw, but it's bothering me somewhat.

 

[Psion]

This isnt even necissary to the extent you seem to mean, it is something that is 'already' done with most/all prcs to begin with.

Careful now. You are reading into my statements. I never said anything like "most" PrCs do this. Just that there are PrCs that do this. But really, the big thing you affect here is more feat chains than PrCs.

I do assume that all material I would be willing to use is well written or I will rewrite it better.

Ah, but if they work great UNTIL you introduce the flaw system, then things go out of whack.

So does that make those items poorly written, or the flaw system? I'm saying it's the flaw system. The authors of such resources had no reason to assume someone would come giving out feats like Santa giving out candy canes. I don't think it's at all fair to call them poorly designed and thought out when by the core system, they work just fine, but when you introduce this new system, all of a sudden they are arguable too potent.

If everyone has a problem with your neighbor, it's your neighbor. If you have problems with all your neighbors, it's you.

And the flaw system does not "work and play well with others."

But then your arguement led to my question.

If it isnt going to be overpowered then there I dont see any reason to dissallow it.

My point was even if I was at home right now, I wouldn't be summoning up a list just to illustrate my point. I think it's pretty well obvious that the general design principle of feat chains is that you put the weakest feats first and follow them up with successively stronger feats. I don't think I should have to illustrate that.

Whether it's overpowered is a personal determination. But I do think that it's pretty clear that despite protestations to the contrary, they do add power to PCs in the game. Is that "overpowered"? That's up to you; I've had games where I just gave PCs feats. But I don't think DMs should labor under the delusion that it doesn't add power to the PCs who take them, or that (like the old 2e kits) characters without flaws are going to be as potent as those who take them.

If one is worried about people taking advantage that is an important worry, but it can happen with every part of the system. Either you let the players know what limits not to go past or you let them run rampant.

Again, sure, why not? But again, beings that this can affect a wide variety of feat chains out there. The DM might have to deal with one of a variety of fires that weren't there before.

As for the sudden metamagics, they are poorly balanced to begin with.

Whether or not you beleive that, that's sort of not the point. Those are feat driven chains, some of which require considerable prereqs and thus are typically only available at higher levels.

If you really mean this then you should likely dissallow feats entirely as my arguement holds true for 'any' feat, no matter what it is.

Not at all. Where did you get that?

If the flaw is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly.

I don't buy that. Most disadvantages are highly serendipitous if they have a credible chance of having an impact at all. Because players try to minimize their impact. It's only if the GM puts it in their face and/or creates a cost for avoiding it that you can be sure that it will have an impact in the game.

But I've seen this pattern before. Once this particular argument comes up, it's usually a sign that the person has stopped listening to reason and is emotionally committed.

So let me ask you, sincerely, do you really beleive that? I invite you to seriously consider this before answering.

If you do, I suggest to you that a majority of flaws I have seen to date are "not made properly". I think this is so not because the people who put them to paper were bad designers, but because the approach itself is problematic.

If the feat is never an issue then it likely wasnt made properly, if it is always an issue it likely wasnt made properly.

If a feat is rarely an issue, then the player either chose it for flavor vice power or the GM is being a putz by not allowing the PC to ever shine. Typically, players specifically seek out feats they feel will benefit them and will step up to use them when the opportunity presents, so this is much less snakey of an issue.

They go hand in hand. I will say it again because it holds true no matter if we are talking about feats or flaws or anything else in the system: The penalty should not come up anymore often than any other feat has a chance to.

Unfortunately, player psychology as well as the very role-driven nature of the game work counter to the notion that the two are parallel. They are not.

So, when would the 'per incident' happen? If he had the choice to make an attack but didnt?

I wouldn't make an attack penalty a flaw at all. That's one of those cases of those who it affects wouldn't take it, those who it won't affect significantly (arcane spellcasters) would.

well, that is basically every round of combat. He would gain a huge amount of whatever benefit he was allowed all of the time.

You make it sound like he might actually be a case for actually deserving those two feats. I'm not seeing the problem here. In typical D&D, this situation would come up an awful lot. But let's say you are playing an (admittedly unusual) campaign that this situation is not so common. Somethink like SA with courtier as a core class and lots of subterfuge. Then all the sudden, the benefit does not look like it was compensated for.

Likewise, the player choosing this would likely try to engineer around it... and easily justify it too. If you stink at combat and are nauseated by it, how much does it hinder you if you make an enchanter who tries to solve every problem with charm spells. This is how characters are made. Players don't purposefully pick flaws that they think are going to hinder them greatly. I would be very surprised to see a fighter with the flaws you mention.

 

[Psion]

What about another permutation of the flaw mechanic that I've seen, flaws with prerequistes? For instance, in Dragon 324, there's a flaw for Bards called Fool. It removes the inspire courage, inspire competence, inspire greatness, and inspire heroics bardic music abilities from your character's abilities.

Ah, now that's a horse of a different color. That is trading benefits/capabilities for other capabilities. And it sounds like a pretty reasonable and cool way to tweak a class I consider over specialized. But from what I have seen, not too typical of flaws.

 

[Scion]

Careful now. You are reading into my statements. I never said anything like "most" PrCs do this. Just that there are PrCs that do this. But really, the big thing you affect here is more feat chains than PrCs.

You said that they would have to go out of their way to do so, but they dont, they merely have to follow the basic rules that they 'already' follow.

I dont know of any prc's that require a feat chain that do not require some sort of nonfeat requirement somewhere in there.

But even then, if they are able to get in a level or two earlier I highly doubt this will be incredibly disruptive. If anything it is likely to make their character more like what they want. I see that as a good thing, not a bad one

Ah, but if they work great UNTIL you introduce the flaw system, then things go out of whack.

This has yet to be shown.

Like I said earlier, I would love to see some things where this happens.

And the flaw system does not "work and play well with others."

I know that you have said this before, but I still havent seen anything convincing pointing in that direction. Except perhaps poorly made flaws (which I am sure could happen) or poorly made prcs (which do happen). These are both easy enough to fix, just like anything else questionable in the system and are not a direct result of the flaws, they were already there.


Now you have said that you do not wish to illustrate your point. That is fine I suppose, but it does mean that I personally will take what you have said merely as an opinion with potentially no basis. I doubt this matters to you of course, but if I was going to decide whether or not to use them I would discount your vote completely based on that.

Whether or not you beleive that, that's sort of not the point. Those are feat driven chains, some of which require considerable prereqs and thus are typically only available at higher levels.

If we are tossing aside all semblance of balance then there is little point for the entire discussion.

Still though, having a higher number of entry level feats (feats which are, by your own admitance, weaker) is unlikely to seriously impact low level play. It 'might' impact high level play depending but there are so many factors that could do so that this seems to be a proverbial drop in the bucket without further evidence.

Yes, someone could grab some extra feats early on, but they also have all of those penalties right from the start as well. Tradeoffs.

Not at all. Where did you get that?

From what you said.

I had said that they should get equal treatment just like any feat would, you said that this proved your point.

So, either we have a problem with everything in that category or nothing, as they are each in exactly the same boat for usefulness/detriment.

I don't buy that. Most disadvantages are highly serendipitous if they have a credible chance of having an impact at all. Because players try to minimize their impact.

I see flaws in a different light than you do I suppose.

I see them as a way to make a character concept that would normally not work, or not work very well, to be balanced with the rest of the party.

Minimizing penalties is exactly what people do with every single part of the system, you try to get rid of things that can hinder your ability to survive.

The flaws make for something that is difficult or impossible to overcome directly and so you get some other bonus.

Of course people are going to try to minimize its impact, just like every other part that is bad.. like a low wisdom fighter will try to minimize the impact of his horrible will save. There is no difference there.

Once this particular argument comes up, it's usually a sign that the person has stopped listening to reason and is emotionally committed.

I am asking you to provide your reasoning and explain the parts that I feel are either inconsistant, contradictory, or (in my eyes) incorrect.

If you feel that you cannot defend your arguements sufficiently, or if you feel that I am asking for more information than you feel should be required, that is your own call.


I have given some ideas and examples of reasons why I feel it works in a different way than you have said. That is generally how a discussion works

You make it sound like he might actually be a case for actually deserving those two feats. I'm not seeing the problem here. In typical D&D, this situation would come up an awful lot. But let's say you are playing an (admittedly unusual) campaign that this situation is not so common. Somethink like SA with courtier as a core class and lots of subterfuge. Then all the sudden, the benefit does not look like it was compensated for.

So you are saying that it can work, if done properly.

Good enough for me, that was all that I was saying. Just because something has poor implimitation in some areas does not make the whole idea flawed (ha).

Still though, even in the subterfuge game not being able to harm anyone can cause a lot of problems, but even if it doesnt the amount of feats that will help a lot in such a situation are likewise fairly limited (given that many feats are combat oriented).

Likewise, the player choosing this would likely try to engineer around it... and easily justify it too. If you stink at combat and are nauseated by it, how much does it hinder you if you make an enchanter who tries to solve every problem with charm spells. This is how characters are made. Players don't purposefully pick flaws that they think are going to hinder them greatly. I would be very surprised to see a fighter with the flaws you mention.

Actually, the character in question 'was' a fighter type (psychic warrior actually). Not a fighter directly, because they are no good out of combat anyway.. if a fighter had those flaws they would need a whole lot more compensation than a paltry 2 feats. He might need 'dozens' of feats over his 20 level career to make it a valid choice.

If the character starts solving his problems useing only charms good for him. He knows his limitations and has found a way to work around them. This sort of approach 'will' backfire quite often however.

Just like a mage cannot wear most armors but still needs a good AC, he will find a way to make up for the lack or die trying.

I dont see any difference there


Roleplaying drawbacks/rewards for roleplaying rewards/drawbacks.
Mechanical drawbacks/rewards for mechanical rewards/drawbacks.

If one has one why cant they get the other somehow? Some are minor enough to not matter either way, but a gaping hole of doom? Something has to be done to make the character concept worth playing still.

Feats are a decent solution. Of course there are better ones (especially tailor made exceptions) but generally that would be in the province of the dm and outside of general rules, because it would favor lack of choices over choices when written into a book like that.

So long as the dm makes sure that the penalty is enough and the benefit is fitting the character, whether because of the drawback, in spite of it, or some other factor, it seems like it 'could' work.