Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pickles III" data-source="post: 6815375" data-attributes="member: 6793942">Both of theseI 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 negativeThe "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 headOverly 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</blockquote>

Verification