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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Connorsrpg" data-source="post: 6816504" data-attributes="member: 19265">[MENTION=6808678]Awesome Adam[/MENTION]Thanks. You made my point betterer <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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:<a href="http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-races" target="_blank">http://connorscampaigns.wikidot.com/d-d-races</a>.Would this be useful?Anyway, as you have stated - I intend to stick with using what is there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />If there are any other spec egs I should be considering, please point them out.</blockquote>

Verification