Inopportune Migraine- Penalty for flavor

[The_Universe]

I'd say that this...

The migraine occurs every time the character feels physically threatened.

...is far too subjective. Just like you can't have a feat that's abilities come into play when a character "feels" a certain way, you shouldn't have a flaw based on that same sort of standard.

Why not? Because the way a character feels is entirely determined by the player, and (at best) are sometimes also up to DM's discretion.

However, Takyris has included this...

The first time in each combat that the character is attacked directly or suffers damage in combat, the character must also make a Fortitude save (DC15).

...which somewhat mitigates the problems of having a flaw based on feelings. However, I'd say the flaw is simply not as "flawed" as the rest of its brethren. It's very specific, and has a way for a character to easily avoid its worst effects. When taken in contrast with an "official" flaw that flat out penalizes melee or ranged attacks by the equivalent of 2 or 3 levels, a flaw that might only leave a character shaken after they've taken damage in a combat (far from a guarantee) seems a little light on penalties.

And it doesn't seem like it has a lot to do with migraine headaches, since they're not typically (as far as I am aware) based on imminent danger of injury or death.

The short version: I'd be uncomfortable with any flaw that allows a save to mitigate its in-game effect.

In fact, a more apropriate version is probably just:

Easily Shaken: You take a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks. The penalties to skill checks do not apply when circumstances would normally allow you to take 10 or 20.

 

[Laurel]

Still working on ideas that could mesh as a 'flaw', but would any of you permit the original set up as a straight penalty?

 

[takyris]

Hey, Universe, a few points of clarification:

1) Didn't have UA in front of me when I wrote that, so if it's underpowered compared to flaws that are official, yeah, my bad.

2) I wrote it ambiguously -- also my bad. The first line was meant to be flavor-text. The second line was where the rules kicked in. I'd intended it to mean "First time you're directly attacked OR take damage (ie, from a non-direct attack like an area-of-effect spell or trap effect).

3) In terms of the hindrance level, again, I'd have to look at it with UA in front of me, but my thinking was "Always at least at a -2, possibly only getting move-actions for the duration of the combat," was reasonable for a flaw. I know it's heavier than I'd want to take, even as a mage. If you're concerned that the DC is low, I'd change it to "Save DC of 15+damage taken, or just 15 for a miss."

It is more complex than a normal flaw, though, and I wouldn't want everyone in the party to have something like this -- it would annoy me to have to track that much stuff. The flat-penalty flaws are significantly easier to track.

 

[Wystan]

I would say that as a flaw the following would be most flavorful and fitting...(my wife gets random migraines)

At the Beginning of any Game Session the player must roll a D20, on a 1-10 the character gets the following negative effects applied until the next session.
a. -2 to hit and damage (can't concentrate)
b. -5 to any Int based Skill checks (Can't concentrate)
c. -2 to any Cha based Skill Checks (irritable)
d. After 2 rounds of combat the character becomes fatigued
e. After 5 rounds of combat the character becomes exhausted

 

[The_Universe]

Hey, Universe, a few points of clarification:

1) Didn't have UA in front of me when I wrote that, so if it's underpowered compared to flaws that are official, yeah, my bad.

2) I wrote it ambiguously -- also my bad. The first line was meant to be flavor-text. The second line was where the rules kicked in. I'd intended it to mean "First time you're directly attacked OR take damage (ie, from a non-direct attack like an area-of-effect spell or trap effect).

3) In terms of the hindrance level, again, I'd have to look at it with UA in front of me, but my thinking was "Always at least at a -2, possibly only getting move-actions for the duration of the combat," was reasonable for a flaw. I know it's heavier than I'd want to take, even as a mage. If you're concerned that the DC is low, I'd change it to "Save DC of 15+damage taken, or just 15 for a miss."

It is more complex than a normal flaw, though, and I wouldn't want everyone in the party to have something like this -- it would annoy me to have to track that much stuff. The flat-penalty flaws are significantly easier to track.

Part of my concern is definitely the difficulty in tracking it. I think it could work at some level, but it's very complex, and doesn't really fit with the way that UA flaws are supposed to work (since the penalties are supposed to be "always on").

I'm just worried that your penalties only apply after her specific character is attacked or damaged. Even in a small group (which this is not), it's rare that *every* character will be targeted for attack during combat. This essentially lets her off free as long as she manages to stay untargeted for an average of 15 seconds...the numbers add up fine, but my experience has said that even these seemingly inncuous (and admittedly story-apropriate) adjustments to the way flaws work will leave her underpenalized.

 

[Laurel]

Taking takyris basic idea

Inopportune Migraine

Character normally has a good block to migraine's, but looses that hold when other things make her mind splinter.

Each time the character is attacked directly or suffers damage, the character must also make a Fortitude save (DC15). Success indicates that the character is Shaken for 2d6 rounds. Failure indicates that the character is Nauseated for 2d6 rounds and Shaken for another 2d6 minutes. While Shaken another roll does not need to be made.

As before even if the PC failes the save there is still a penalty, just a worse penalty for a failed save.

I took out the 'in combat'. Not a big change, but would mean any attack or damage would fall into this. For instance, if the DM declared: she was walking down the road and stubs her toe, the roll still has to be made. I also took out the 'first' part of the combat language, but added in the next roll only happens after the Shaken effect is gone......
[EDIT:Just realized that last part made no sense.... drat. Still reading all the posts- thanks again guys!]

Also, looking at the-universe's posted thread and custom flaws.

 

[genshou]

As a sufferer of chronic migraines, I can tell you that–realistically–a flat-out, always-active penalty doesn't accurately portray the actual condition. I can concentrate just as well as anyone else–until a migraine hits. Then, I may as well be a 1st-level Commoner with a Constitution score of 4 and a permanent curse that forces me to cower in any stressful situation.

So, the more 'random' rules are more realistic, such as [a] 25% chance per day of suffering negative effects. Just remember that the flaw is only 25% as bad as the penalties themselves suggest, and you can properly balance it while maintaining proper realism. [Edit: It doesn't have to be 25%; that's just the simplest fraction based on my own migraine frequency.]

 

[The_Universe]

As a sufferer of chronic migraines, I can tell you that–realistically–a flat-out, always-active penalty doesn't accurately portray the actual condition. I can concentrate just as well as anyone else–until a migraine hits. Then, I may as well be a 1st-level Commoner with a Constitution score of 4 and a permanent curse that forces me to cower in any stressful situation.

So, the more 'random' rules are more realistic, such as [a] 25% chance per day of suffering negative effects. Just remember that the flaw is only 25% as bad as the penalties themselves suggest, and you can properly balance it while maintaining proper realism. [Edit: It doesn't have to be 25%; that's just the simplest fraction based on my own migraine frequency.]

Oh, I have little doubt that any of the "constant" flaws are totally unrealistic. But most people can swing a sword more than once in six seconds, and we don't get all in a huff about that.

It has to be a constant penalty (or at least one that applies every time the character would have to roll the dice) so that it remains consistent with the other flaws, and thus maintains the balance of the character. Sure, there are ways for the GM (me, in this case) to work around any balance issues, but I'd rather write a good rule that doesn't properly reflect reality than write a bad rule that does.

 

[Laurel]

As a sufferer of chronic migraines, I can tell you that–realistically–a flat-out, always-active penalty doesn't accurately portray the actual condition. I can concentrate just as well as anyone else–until a migraine hits. Then, I may as well be a 1st-level Commoner with a Constitution score of 4 and a permanent curse that forces me to cower in any stressful situation.

So, the more 'random' rules are more realistic, such as [a] 25% chance per day of suffering negative effects. Just remember that the flaw is only 25% as bad as the penalties themselves suggest, and you can properly balance it while maintaining proper realism. [Edit: It doesn't have to be 25%; that's just the simplest fraction based on my own migraine frequency.]

Thank you Genshou, and I get what you are saying and agree.

The biggest problem I am reading from all the past posts seems to be in making an always on cause/effect rule. (By the way the-universe is my DM)

Taking out the 'flaw' rules and making it just a negative effect would any of you as DM's allow any of the above? Or a combo of the above? Or other suggestions for a possible way to make this work?

As a completly negative effect there would be no bonus feat- it would be a straight penalty.

 

[genshou]

Thank you Genshou, and I get what you are saying and agree.

The biggest problem I am reading from all the past posts seems to be in making an always on cause/effect rule. (By the way the-universe is my DM)

Taking out the 'flaw' rules and making it just a negative effect would any of you as DM's allow any of the above? Or a combo of the above? Or other suggestions for a possible way to make this work?

As a completly negative effect there would be no bonus feat- it would be a straight penalty.

Two words: The DM is always right. Oh, wait... *looks at fingers for a sec* Ok, here are the two words: Thedmis alwaysright.

As far as properly reflecting reality...

Oh, I have little doubt that any of the "constant" flaws are totally unrealistic. But most people can swing a sword more than once in six seconds, and we don't get all in a huff about that.

Well, maybe you don't get in a huff about it, but I...

Actually, that particular qualm is never really "explained away" in the rules. But that's a story for another thread topic. As for the current subject matter...

I have little to no access to UA, so I can't look up the rules for flaws, nor compare this thread's ideas with them. If a constant penalty is what's necessary to make it functional in d20 System, that works just fine. But for those of us who want more realism in a migraine-suffering character, it's nice to see something more along the lines of how migraines actually function.

I'm fine with it either way, so keep it up on both sides