D&D 5E Flaws

[Connorsrpg]

Thanks guys. I really appreciate your thoughts.

Hopefully, I have none as bad as that last example [MENTION=60539]Mellord.[/MENTION]

I can definitely see the upside of aligning a related positive with the negative. (I know a lot of Cypher System Descriptors certainly work that way).

Only prob I see is you are then making up extra 'positive features'. I was just trying to use what is there: proficiencies and feats.

Oh, and it would be a whole lotta work But something I would be willing to try. (IF it had more validity than what we already have).

On the down side, it completely limits the flexibility of the system. If a player really wants an extra proficiency in my game, I simply say, "No worries, just choose a minor flaw." If we went with exact benefit/drawback matches, it would become, "You must take this flaw." Not a bad option sometimes, but not good if the is not something they would want at all. (I know, you guys support that trade-off).

I might have to go down this route for public release, but again, I don't see 1-2 profs or 1 feat as a huge benefit.

The other side to this is, clearly I don't play with enough power gamers. My players often roll random flaws. Whilst you see huge benefits for taking major flaws, in actual play, I have seen very few b/c players won't take them. If a lot worse then I can only see that happening more.

But, I know many people would NOT be happy with random rolls either.

Another limiting factor of this (and main reason for creating the flaws in the first place) is we assign flaws to races. Much like 3E our races have drawbacks too. But as you guys have said, these come with the 'positive features' given for race. Given we have always used racial drawbacks, this seems normal to us.

In a regular 5E game starting with a few racial drawback might alleviate the fact you can choose another one or two and do well out of those.

Thanks for giving me more to ponder.

 

[Awesome Adam]

I prefer the additional feat and profs. They add a little without getting out of hand. It's also more likely to get used. DM's are already familar with feats and skills and can easily decide if PC's having an additional 1, or 2, is right for their campaign. Having a whole list of new "advantages: is a harder sell, and may possibly be better served as a seperate project.

Also, major advantages would have to roughly equal to a Feat in power/usefullness and I can already see the Dissaproving GM's rolling their eyes, and power gamers salivating at the prospect. Not saying it's not worth doing, but I think it's worthy of a seperate undertaking, with all the thought, and play testing, it will require.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6808678]Awesome Adam[/MENTION]
Thanks. You made my point betterer

Whilst I understand the matching negative with positive features that are related, it probably does not suit this situation/5E where the positive features are already laid out.

Of course, you could align the proficiencies and feats up with specific drawbacks too, but most of those just wouldn't make sense.

I am going into this with a very conscious 'don't use to abuse' and if you have players that do, then perhaps this is not for your game. However, there are plenty of tables out there that like the depth flaws give PCs (and love systems like Savage Worlds).

And it is highly encouraged to assign flaws to races if you use this system. So some flaws can't be used for advantage. I am even thinking of including a section on races at the end with suggested 'assigned drawbacks' (like we have on our Race Page:http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-races.

Would this be useful?

Anyway, as you have stated - I intend to stick with using what is there.

If there are any other spec egs I should be considering, please point them out.

 

[Connorsrpg]

Also, I noted that some one used 'rolling a 1' as offsetting the positive benefits, but wouldn't most tables use results like that on a roll of 1 anyway? We always treat a 1 as some sort of 'fumble failure' or as the Cypher System states, a 'free GM Intrusion'. I get the sentiment here, but that to me is already part of the system.

 

[Connorsrpg]

We are still working on these for publication. Is there anyone else that would like to take a look? The feedback so far has been very good. Thanks ENWorld

 

[Connorsrpg]

I have changed the name from Flaws to Drawbacks. (OP link changed to match new name of webpage, but including the new link here too):
http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-drawbacks

 

[MechaPilot]

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

That's actually what I've done with attractiveness in my games. I let players choose whether their characters are average, attractive, or unattractive.

Average characters are what the rules already assume. Attractive characters get benefits to social situations where their attractiveness can influence others, but it also makes them stand out in a crowd and leaves others with the initial impression that the character may have gotten by on his/her looks.

Unattractive characters also stand out in a crowd. They also get penalties to situations where attractiveness can influence others, but they get benefits to intimidation attempts, and they are generally seen as being tougher or more competent than attractive characters because the assumption is that they had to work for it.

 

[mellored]

That's actually what I've done with attractiveness in my games. I let players choose whether their characters are average, attractive, or unattractive.

Average characters are what the rules already assume. Attractive characters get benefits to social situations where their attractiveness can influence others, but it also makes them stand out in a crowd and leaves others with the initial impression that the character may have gotten by on his/her looks.

Unattractive characters also stand out in a crowd. They also get penalties to situations where attractiveness can influence others, but they get benefits to intimidation attempts, and they are generally seen as being tougher or more competent than attractive characters because the assumption is that they had to work for it.

Those sound pretty balanced and flavorful

Nice job.

 

[MechaPilot]

Those sound pretty balanced and flavorful

Nice job.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

 

[GMMichael]

I have changed the name from Flaws to Drawbacks. (OP link changed to match new name of webpage, but including the new link here too):
http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-drawbacks

Good move. Let flaws be flaws. The way I see it, RPG characters spend their whole careers getting better at things. Flaws are your only chance to get worse.