D&D 5E Flaws

[ad_hoc]

As Flaw is a game term you should change it. Drawbacks works well.

I still feel like you need to work on balance. A drawback that can be taken by a character and have no impact on them means that every character of that sort should take that flaw. This is a major balance issue, because of course, thematically the drawbacks don't fit all of those characters.

DMs Guild is full of stuff that is all over the place. Nice ideas, but they need to work as part of the game as well. You will have a longer lasting and better impression if you work out the balance first.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6748898]ad_hoc[/MENTION]

Thanks for your input. Re balance, I can see your point, but again, there is no point in going too far either. If the flaws are too negative, then no one will take them. You seem to think gaining a feat from the get-go is too powerful. As seen in other threads, some people even start all PCs with a feat at 1st level. Everyone on our site has so far thought that the flaws are appropriate. RARELY has a major flaw even been taken.

You have provided one example, and one I addressed. (And I still feel that there is no need to go to ALL attacks for a major. Restricting your build to avoid said spells etc, is still a restriction, which adds weight to the flaw).

Again, of course, with any flaw system, some power gamers might look to exploit it, but try to look to this with an eye to roleplaying too. It is extremely hard to cater to every character combo, but we feel we have a fair mix with fair balance. So, I am interested in what you think re the eg in my last post.

Do others see a 'balance issue'? B/c quite frankly we have not, though still interested in the Ability penalty ones.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Also remember, this system works best when some flaws are assigned to the races. This helps to define the race, but also limits the choosing only those that may not come into play too much. So, even if that is done, there are still some other flaws to bring into play.

 

[Awesome Adam]

You may want to put a cap of gaining only a single feat in this method.

My first thought was to roll up a meat head human variant Fighter taking 2+ major flaws and having 3-4 starting feats.

Like the whole concept BTW. Reminds me of Vampire the Masquerade

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6808678]Awesome Adam[/MENTION]

Thanks for your comments.

re LIMITS: As a GM, I don't think I would cap this, but I know my players I will recommend a cap at 1 feat, 2 proficiencies. Does that sound okay? But of course, a GM has the final say. I like to say yes a lot, but I would make sure those Major flaws really played a part in the game

As a GM I would have a LOT of fun with that meat-headed fighter . Must also remember the RPing of this too. Whilst there is listed mechanical parts, the players should be encouraged to roleplay the name and short descriptive part of the Flaw too.

 

[Awesome Adam]

My game design theory is that it is better to have a rule to follow, that the DM can ignore, than no guideline at all.

 

[Connorsrpg]

True that. I think I will follow that advice. Did the numbers posted above sound fine? 2 Minor, 1 Major as starting Flaws.

When this makes it to publication, I will include such a 'ruling' at the beginning.

In fact, I might add it to our site in the meantime too.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6793942]Pickles III[/MENTION]

Hi, I noted you Xped a post above and I was just wondering as to your reasons. Your feedback may be of some use.

Essentially, which part or parts of the post did you XP?

Change of name to Drawbacks?

The amount of DMGuild stuff that is "all over the place".

Balance issues of flaws in general.

OR

My Flaws need work on balance?

(Obviously, I am after feedback on the latter ones, and if you have any specifics, I would LOVE to hear from you).

 

[Pickles III]

[MENTION=6793942]Pickles III[/MENTION]
Change of name to Drawbacks?

Balance issues of flaws in general.

Both of these

My Flaws need work on balance?

(Obviously, I am after feedback on the latter ones, and if you have any specifics, I would LOVE to hear from you).

I was not thinking about this at the time specifically. Ad_hoc has mostly covered the principle.

My view on flaws is that they are simply another opportunity to min max. People who want to roleplay a deficiency can do so without this system. People who want to make a wizard or an archer will take the bad at melee attacks one & get sharpshooter or warwizard for free.

I like mechanical support for in game flavour but it turns out that I prefer this to support positive effects not negative ones. The game already rewards specialisation (not as much a previous editions to be sure) & these type of flaw tend to make it more pronounced.

Anyway I was not going to comment as my view on the whole thing is not favourable & so I did not want to be unduly negative

The "bad at melee attacks" drawback is fine by the way as a minor one.

I would prefer drawbacks that come linked to what they are boosting so they mitigate min maxing.

eg, of the top of my head

Overly familiar: you are full of joi de vivre & greet everyone with enthusiasm. You are proficient in Persuasion. If you ever roll 1 on a Cha (persuasion) check then you have been too familiar the check fails & the targets become enduringly hostile. (get disadvantage on future CHA checks with them & their associates.

Trained not born: you are proficient in athletics if you roll a one on a STR (athletics) check an old training injury flares up & you suffer disadvantage on STR checks & attacks until your next short rest.

As a positive I really like some of the names & some of the effects - I will look again

 

[mellored]

IMO: drawbacks should be packaged with benefits. That way you can keep the trade-offs.

Fire Affinity: You are resistant to fire, and vulnerable to cold.
Iron Brick: You have advantage on Con saves, and disadvantage on Dex saves.

That way you can't have an fighter with -2 DC on all your spells for +2 to weapon damage.