Flaws


log in or register to remove this ad

Ravellion

serves Gnome Master
I've allowed them, but I'd be wary of allowing any from Dragon magazine. The Unearthed Arcana ones are harsh enough that it shouldn't matter when you show them to a minmaxer, and will actually come up in play, addin to the fun of the session IMO (ah, my friend's Feeble wizard and his bad, bad, climb check modifier).

Realistically though, an extra feat or two at first level doens't seriously hurt game balance. I am not going to allow them in the future, I will just up the frequency of feats instead.

Rav
 

Seeten

First Post
These are lame, and I wouldnt allow them. My grappler has murky vision and cant fire a bow, so I get more grappling feats! Yay.

Ugh.
 

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I'd be willing to allow them in exchange for some of the more flavorful, generally weaker feats, and only if there is an RP justification.

For example, if your character has keen eyes but bad hearing, I'd let you take a feat that gives a +2 bonus to search and spot checks, while taking a flaw that grants -4 to listen checks and sense motive checks.

I would not, however, let you take a melee-oriented flaw (like non-combatant, which gives a negative to your melee attacks) in exchange for a metamagic feat for example.
 
Last edited:

Laurel

First Post
We are allowed to take them- only 2 taken max from UA and the bonus feat gets approval by DM/group. We also have a rule that you can't take a flaw and a feat of the same type. For instance we can't take the flaw for negative hp and then take the hardness feat or a Con bonus feat. It hasn't drastically changed the game.
 

Laman Stahros

First Post
I allow them in my game and I haven't seen any problems with them. The GM must remember to bring them up in game every so often. If the GM doesn't, then the player has gained a freebie and it is the GM's fault.
 

jcfiala

Explorer
I allowed them in one game, and most of the players took them - but generally they tended to pop up and restrict play in one way or another. It seems like a fairly safe option, as long as you restrict it to one flaw.
 

Cephid

First Post
All this sounds interesting. More developed and focused characters.
Where can I find a list of all these flaws on line?
 


Magesmiley

Explorer
I do allow flaws in my game. I use them pretty much as presented in UA. It can make for more powerful characters - a starting character can begin further up a feat chain if they wish. However, since I run a fairly high-powered campaign it is not as noticable.
 

EyeontheMountain

First Post
I am not a fan of flaws, as it is too easy to min-max, or concioulyy avoid ever takin gthat skill or getting into a situation whre a flaw hurts you. I give out extra feats though, they make the game a lot more fun.
 

Sejs

First Post
I allow them, to a max of one per character. I generally follow the guidelines in UA for their design, etc, but also borrow heavily from GURPS for a broader list of what could be codified as a flaw. In my current game, only one player character has opted to take a flaw; in this case it's Overwhelming Curiosity (will save to stay on-task if something piques her interest). ...And she's the party's scout. Fun times.

As a DM I'm actually trying something of a different approach in regard of flaws when it comes to recurring NPCS. Namely, every recurring NPC has to both have a flaw, and one of their stats has to be a base 8. I'm seriously digging it so far. Adds another level of depth that aids me in developing them as a person.
 

Bront

The man with the probe
I would consider allowing them, but I didn't care for them in general. I thought that it became too easy to min/max things to a point that I'm not comfortable with. If you're already not going to take ranks in a particular skill or not use a particular type of weapon, is it realy that much of a big deal to get more penalties?
 

Li Shenron

Legend
Egres said:
Does anyone use/allow them?

I allow the UA ones, but not all of them. In any case, no one has used them yet.

Egres said:
What's your DM point of view on them?

They can be a nice addition in two cases:

1) to a character build who really benefits from an extra feat [e.g. qualify for a PrCl much earlier]

2) to a player who really means to roleplay the flaw, and not just put the flaw where he can safely ignore it *

UA flaws are the best around for one reason: their penalties are hard to avoid. You cannot choose not to make a saving throw or to roll initiative... You are always going to pay for that extra feat, if the flaw gives you penalties to: Hit Points, Initiative, saving throws, Listen & Spot checks. I do not allow flaws with attack penalties, because it's easy to take them for spellcasters and never pay the price.

* Flaws are more fair when put in something you neither have very high or very low. However the fact that UA flaws penalties are bigger than the equivalent feats which give bonuses to the same thing, should compensate even for players who try to minimize the flaw effects. I even think that -4 to Listen & Spot (perhaps the weakest penalty among these) has its price when you almost always miss the surprise round.

The biggest criticism vs flaws is minmaxing. However many who hate UA flaws use UA traits, which is incredible since UA traits are much much more subject to minmaxing...
 

KarinsDad

Adventurer
Li Shenron said:
The biggest criticism vs flaws is minmaxing. However many who hate UA flaws use UA traits, which is incredible since UA traits are much much more subject to minmaxing...

My criticism is that along with feats, they are turning DND into a homogenous roleplaying game. Since GURPS, Heroes, Rolemaster, HARP, and other RPGs have the equivalent of flaws (and traits), DND must have them as well.
 

I took Unreactive once, but then took Improved Initiative as my bonus feat, so I'm not sure I'm doing it right. :p

Some flaws not in UA seem pretty weak compared to the UA ones. I took Implacable (out of some Dragon issue) once for a dwarf fighter who was prety much not going to retreat anyway, and IIRC the penalty for retreating was pretty small and of short duration. But I will say that it helped sharpen his personality for me, so the RP value was there.
 

IMO, the DM should carefully control what Flaws they allow in their campaign. Some Flaws aren't going to be balanced, but they keep cropping up in game supplements for some strange reason.

Note that anything that increases the number of feats you get at 1st-level is a powerup, so be careful.
 

jayaint

First Post
So... according to the "letter of the written law" A 1st level human fighter could take two flaws (Shaky, and Unreactive, lets say) and have 5 feats to build with.... wow.

Sounds like fun to me. :)
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top