Flaws would you...?

[brehobit]

My halfing fighter/barb/ranger/duskblade/dragonmark heir 1/1/1/1/2 had the -3 fort modifier. It brought my fort save down to just above what it would have been as a pure level 6 fighter....

Mark

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

And in one fell swoop you just showed why the Flaw subsystem stinks. It will always be mined for Flaws that essentially doesn't hurt the character.


So my answer would be NO WAY (and my advice not to use the Flaw system at all, instead just hand out more feats for everyone if you feel the need for it).

I agree totally. Feats are WAY over used for game mechanics and there are too few given. I just started playing again aver a few years (never played 3.5 just 3) And the number of them is staggering.

I agree with the problems of the flaw system. You will simply take whatever impacts the character the least and take a feat that maximizes him the most. But I'm not the DM. So we will see what he thinks.

 

[nittanytbone]

I agree with the problems of the flaw system. You will simply take whatever impacts the character the least and take a feat that maximizes him the most. But I'm not the DM. So we will see what he thinks.

Agreed to some degree.

However, note that the designers of the system already considered this:

Flaws are generally bigger in magnitude than feats. That's because players always choose flaws that have the least impact on their characters, while taking feats that have the most. For example, while a feat affecting skills grants a +2 bonus on two skills, its counterpart flaw might impose a -4 penalty on two skills.

Perhaps -3 to a save isn't big enough to counter the benefit, in your opinion, which is a reasonable point of view; however, I think the example I cited is a pretty specific one. Even for the cleric of travel, it now requires consumable resources (Protection from Energy spells, domain power usage) to deal with things that before might be dealt with via a simple save. So there is some tradeoff, even though it is a weakness that can be covered.

Just because a flaw can be worked around with a very specific build doesn't mean that the entire flaw system is worthless, IMHO.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I agree with Nittanybone. Granted - as a DM I don't use the flaw system. But, I also know that as a DM if I want to design a creature to challenge a person's flawed area I can do so. If a player were to pick a flaw and I as a DM saw fit to exploit it, I could - legally, too!

In many respects, the flaw system is as good as the DM. A good DM knows how to balance challenge with success. A good DM knows how to balancing RPing and Powergaming for each group, too. If you've got a good DM, the flaw system can work. If a DM is poor in the areas of balancing challenge/success or powergaming/RPing then the flaw system asks to be exploited.

 

[was]

I wouldn't do it

 

[Ipissimus]

I don't agree that the flaw subsystem stinks, if you look at it as a method of customizing classes. If every wizard has a familiar and every cleric has turn/rebuke, etc, DnD quickly loses variety. Flaws don't work if they give really heinous penalties for little benefit, nobody will ever use them in that way, but give them more esoteric and not overblown penalties and they do come into their own.

What if you want to play a 'slow but relentless' tank build? A penalty to movement rate is fun in this case. Hate familiars? Trade it in for a feat. Raistlin, one of the coolest characters in the DnD multiverses, was sickly and prone to coughing fits. More comedic characters could be shortsighted... possibilities are endless.

 

[Belbarid]

If you have decent Con and Dex (+3 modifiers) would you be tempted to take the flaws that give you -3 to fort. and ref. saves to pick up a 2 extra feats? Especially if you plan on taking a couple classes and PrC's that have +2 to these saves?

Basically removing the bonus you get for a high ability score on the saves? Worth a couple extra feats? Its tempting...

Would you?

Would I? Depends. All I know about the flaw is the game effect, which isn't enough for me to decide one way or another.

Many years ago, in a 2nd ED ToEE game, I played a Ranger dying of some illness. I wanted to play a character who wasn't concerned with danger, because he's dying. He knows he's dying, and doesn't believe he's going to see next year. I even told the DM during character generation that I didn't just want this to be flavortext. None of this "Oh, yeah. I'm dying. <cough, cough>" nonesense. I told him that I wanted a very real possibility that this character might, at some point in the campaign, die of his illness. And lemme tell you, it was great fun to play. For two sessions. Then the character died. The party woke up one morning with a dead ranger.

I got the DM back though. Made a Bladesinger as my next character...

Point is, flaws can be fun to play. All of the characters in my current game have them. No extra feat, no number-crunching penalties. Just things that make the character interesting and present challenges.

 

[Darklone]

Would I? ...

Agreed: If you want to play a character that is dying or going to die, do it

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

As to the merrits of the Flaw system, this is similar to the Skills and Powers debacle of 2e fame. Some of the flaws are horrendous some really don't have much of an impact on character creation. It is not nearly as broken as S&P though.

Personally as a DM I would not use them. In alot of ways they favor primary casters over everyone else, and there is really no way not to do this. I would just give a bonus feat at 1st preferably non-combat related then give out feats at every even level. And do away with flaws.

I DO like the traits system. This gives flavor a plus for a minus, and they are balanced. Flaws are really just an excuse to up the power level of the game. Personaly I feel that since no character is going to take a flaw that is going to significantly hinder their character, and will take a feat that will significantly help their character that it is inherantly in-balanced. So it is just a legal means to up the power level.

Me I would rather just give out more feats than have the illusion of game balance. It would work better if a specific flaw was tied to a specific feat like traits are.

 

[Darklone]

I concur, Traits are much better than Flaws. Sadly, they spammed the list with sooo many skilltraits.