PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] Flaw - One eyed



gibbo88
2009-04-17, 03:54 AM
In an up coming game I have a character that has only one eye, via some mishandling from an Eye of Gruumsh. I wanted opinions on an in-game repercussion for such a flaw.

Past experiences and theories welcome!

Kobold_Love
2009-04-17, 03:59 AM
Perhaps all search and spot checks are reduced in half?

Or you can possibly throw in a small miss chance with melee attacks, ranged attacks, and spells due to his depth perception? Or perhaps only for ranged attacks and spells, since in melee he/she will be close enough where the miss chance is negated?

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-17, 03:59 AM
According to page 30 of http://crystalkeep.com/d20/rules/DnD3.5Index-Races.pdf , Cyclopses take a –2 penalty on ranged attacks, Search checks & Spot checks due to having 1 eye. That would be slightly harsher then a normal flaw, but it makes sense.

gibbo88
2009-04-17, 04:14 AM
Given that the character is an elf, the search and spot merely make him as optically talented as a human, which is fair enough, and the -2 to ranged attacks makes sense as well. Although, maybe I could make it so it was a -1 at 30ft, -2 at 60, -3 at 90? Or would that be too harsh?

golentan
2009-04-17, 04:24 AM
One Eye

You can't see out of one eye--mainly due to the fact that it's not there. You have no peripheral vision on your blind side, and you suffer a 2 point penalty on all rolls and checks involving vision (including ranged attacks). This is due to a birth defect, and therefore cannot be healed by any means short of a Wish or Miracle.

From www.roleplaynexus.com

Be careful with some of their stuff, but many of the flaws are reasonable. That's how I'd do it. Hope it helps.

Kobold_Love
2009-04-17, 04:26 AM
Given that the character is an elf, the search and spot merely make him as optically talented as a human, which is fair enough, and the -2 to ranged attacks makes sense as well. Although, maybe I could make it so it was a -1 at 30ft, -2 at 60, -3 at 90? Or would that be too harsh?

I find it fair. Though if you prefer simplicity, going with a flat -2 seems easier.

Though this flaw might not be an issue at all depending on what class he chooses.


Also, I'd imagine that an eye of Gruumsh would have a more long-term effect on an elf. More on a curse level. Personally I would not make this part of the flaw, but a role-playing sideplot. It could be worked a number of ways, but I'd personally go the route of the trope where Gruumsh sends evil visions which the elf sees through her/his now missing eye, preferably ones of massacres and atrocities upon elven peoples across the multiverse by orcish hands.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-17, 04:29 AM
From www.roleplaynexus.com

Be careful with some of their stuff, but many of the flaws are reasonable. That's how I'd do it. Hope it helps.

That's pretty badly written, especially as it is ambiguous about whether melee attacks (which obviously involve vision) take the penalty.

Tempest Fennac
2009-04-17, 04:35 AM
I'd say you'd be better off just going with a straight -2 penalty (it would needlessly complicate things if distance altered the penalty).

golentan
2009-04-17, 05:09 AM
That's pretty badly written, especially as it is ambiguous about whether melee attacks (which obviously involve vision) take the penalty.

Really? I don't have a problem with it. "No peripheral vision" says to me "You are not entitled to certain spot checks at the DMs discretion." The specific mention of Ranged as opposed to melee says that melee is excluded. Ranged is more obvious, and they explicitly mention it. Meanwhile, one of my friends has only one eye, and is the most amazing melee combatant I know (three black belts in various arts, crazy good at knife fighting, and everything they teach you as an army ranger).

He'd probably be better with both eyes, but I'm not sure it sums to a +2 AB, given the total attack bonus of your average professional soldier in DnD. So meh.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-17, 05:15 AM
Though this flaw might not be an issue at all depending on what class he chooses.


Isn't this the case with most flaws?

And compare it to Shaky, which only gives -2 to ranged attack rolls and nothing else.

Tsotha-lanti
2009-04-17, 05:15 AM
"Including" does not exclude anything (and certainly not everything that isn't specifically mentioned). It says "all rolls and checks involving vision," and mentions no exclusions. Really, really badly written. It's far too broad, and leaves the door open for all sorts of arguments about melee attacks, saves, and the like.

Kobold_Love
2009-04-17, 05:16 AM
Isn't this the case with most flaws?

And compare it to Shaky, which only gives -2 to ranged attack rolls and nothing else.


Good point.

Would you say this makes flaws broken?

Farlion
2009-04-17, 05:23 AM
Would you say this makes flaws broken?

Just use common sense when implementing flaws and they're not broken.

As a rule of thumb: If the flaw doesn't affect the player at least once per game session, don't allow it.

Cheers,
Farlion

Kobold_Love
2009-04-17, 05:25 AM
Just use common sense when implementing flaws and they're not broken.

As a rule of thumb: If the flaw doesn't affect the player at least once per game session, don't allow it.

Cheers,
Farlion

Thanks for the advice. I will make a mental note of this.

Rad
2009-04-17, 05:36 AM
Just use common sense when implementing flaws and they're not broken.

As a rule of thumb: If the flaw doesn't affect the player at least once per game session, don't allow it.

Cheers,
Farlion

This, or have the player pick a feat that is flavorful but will have as little usefulness.

Tengu_temp
2009-04-17, 05:37 AM
Good point.

Would you say this makes flaws broken?

Yes, they are broken. Traits capture the same idea without being a tool for powergamers.

For those unfamiliar, traits are free "feats" that give you small bonuses in exchange for small drawbacks. Their list is somewhat short, but it's pretty easy to make new ones based on what there is already.

golentan
2009-04-17, 05:39 AM
So get adjudication from your DM on things before the game starts. Flaws are an optional rule to begin with, and this is third party material. If you're taking flaws and not discussing in depth with the DM, you're doing it wrong. If you're using third party material and not discussing it, you're doing it horribly wrong. But I'm telling you that I and my group have never had a problem with this stuff. Why? Because we clarify it to begin with. If anything it's nice to have material open to interpretation and tweaking. And much of the stuff on that website is funky or off (note I stated that), but we find it, correct or ban it, and issue judgements before things come up. And much of it is really really useful as supplemental material (like the flaws), which my players use repeatedly and without real game breaking (the worst and only game breaker addon we've had was actually Wizards material). With the not seeing of the problem.

And if you really think it's that hard to rule on, refluff the above mentioned shaky. Boom: due to your lack of depth perception, you take -2 on Ranged attacks and nothing else. I personally think it's less interesting and crunchy, but if it is preferable you do that. Again with the not seeing of the problem.

P.S. Yes. Flaws are usually broken. A good min-maxer (or at least a min-maxer who is good at doing so) will find things that will never apply but which will seem reasonable, and wind up 6 levels ahead of everyone else in feat progression. Again: TALK WITH YOUR DM.

marquiz
2009-04-17, 05:46 AM
Called shots(or aimed shots) to certain body parts (in this case) eyes do cause -2 penalty to checks involving that body part, including and not limited to attack rolls. Since we can assume this to be a wounded eye, and since other eye works, I see no reason to believe this is inapprorpiate. *grin*

gibbo88
2009-04-17, 05:52 AM
Cheers guys. Really like the "Horrible Visions" RP thing, kinda reminds me of Tomas in the Magician stage. I may just go with that, and let DM discretion do the job. In the end, the guys a Scout/Darkwood Stalker and his Listen is just as good as Spot, so if i don't hear it I deserve to meet the attacker with my face.

Warclam
2009-04-22, 12:17 PM
Another thing you could use is the rules for damage to a specific body part from the DMG (page 27). There, it says that damage to one eye (such as losing it, presumably) results in a -2 penalty to:
—Appraise, Craft, Decipher Script, Disable Device, Forgery, Open Lock, Search, Sense Motive, Spellcraft, and Spot checks
—Survival checks (for tracking)
—Dexterity checks, initiative checks, ranged attack rolls, and Reflex saving throws.

That seems like an awful lot, though. You could probably soften it a little by using some of the text for the for Blinded condition: "Characters who remain blinded for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them." I don't know what you'd ease, though. Maybe take away the penalty to initiative, Ref saves, and general Dex checks?

Heh, "Dex checks."