PDA

View Full Version : Need A Flaw For Artificial Sorcerer



EdroGrimshell
2010-06-13, 09:09 PM
As the title says, i need a flaw for a sorceress created by a mad wizard by injecting dragon blood and alchemical mixtures into the character's system.

She is a 6th level battle sorcerer (i know it's not the best option but it's for the flavor purposes) with several draconic feats (Bronze Heritage, Dragon Wings (and the improved version), Draconic Claws, Draconic Knowledge, and Draconic Toughness), the shaky flaw, and the focused trait.

We are allowed to use any 3.5 book (even 3rd party, dungeon magazine, and dragon magazine)

EDIT: Forgot to mention, our sorcerers gain bonus feats at 5th level and every 5 levels thereafter and gain eschew material at 1st level

Eloi
2010-06-13, 09:12 PM
How about 'Noncombatant' because Sorcerers don't enter a lot of melee combat?

EdroGrimshell
2010-06-13, 09:16 PM
How about 'Noncombatant' because Sorcerers don't enter a lot of melee combat?

In this case that's wrong, i'm a battle sorcerer because i'm going to be in combat. But thanks for the quick reply anyway

PId6
2010-06-13, 09:17 PM
Metal Intolerance from Dragon 324: Whenever you take damage from a metal weapon, you take 1 extra damage.

Crippling flaw, eh?

dextercorvia
2010-06-13, 09:19 PM
How about inattentive? All that wide eyed innocence.

Khellendross
2010-06-13, 09:22 PM
Flaws are suppose to be hindering. I'm pretty sure it says something about DM's not allowing players to take flaws that wont actually impede them. -1 to AC isn't a big deal to gain something as good as a feat to a class that doesn't even need AC. I understand players are going to want to pick the ones that least effect them and milk those extra two feats but if I was a player I would use flaws the way they were intended. To be a flaw. If you're going to take a feat have it be in the spirit of what they are meant to be.

EdroGrimshell
2010-06-13, 09:33 PM
Flaws are suppose to be hindering. I'm pretty sure it says something about DM's not allowing players to take flaws that wont actually impede them. -1 to AC isn't a big deal to gain something as good as a feat to a class that doesn't even need AC. I understand players are going to want to pick the ones that least effect them and milk those extra two feats but if I was a player I would use flaws the way they were intended. To be a flaw. If you're going to take a feat have it be in the spirit of what they are meant to be.

I agree entirely, which is why i'm not taking inattentive or vulnerable, i did take shaky, which hinders my character's ranged combat abilities (which would have been a great strategy with his flight ability) but plays well with my character's back story, as do the feats i have taken. Metal intolerance may actually be a good one with the backstory, the metal reacting with the alchemical admixtures in her blood to cause extra harm, but i still want to see some options that will go well with my character.

dextercorvia
2010-06-13, 09:37 PM
Inattentive hurts everyone.

Lysander
2010-06-13, 09:37 PM
How about saying that the arm the dragon blood was injected into became shriveled and disfigured. She can still use it for normal movement, but can't perform precise somatic spell components with that hand. She has to use her other hand for spellcasting. In addition the arm looks bizarre and attracts notice unless covered up.

EdroGrimshell
2010-06-14, 06:02 PM
Decided on arcane parasites (-1 to save DCs on all spells) with her being of an artificial nature explaining the decreased power.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 06:14 PM
Flaws are suppose to be hindering.
Yeah. Unfortunately, many of the flaws from Dragon donít follow the very advice spelled out in Unearthed Arcana. Most of them target specific class abilities, making the 1-level dip to get the flaw very easy. As DM, Iíd certainly only let you take ones such as that keyed for sorcerers. Maybe a fighter one, since youíre a battle sorcerer. But thatís about it.

dextercorvia
2010-06-14, 06:21 PM
Yeah. Unfortunately, many of the flaws from Unearthed Arcana donít follow the very advice spelled out in Unearthed Arcana.

FTFY

Please refer to the following....


A flaw must have a meaningful effect regardless of character class or role. That way, a player can't reduce the flaw's importance through multiclassing. For instance, a flaw that only affects spellcasters might seem reasonable-but for nonspellcaster characters, the flaw likely proves meaningless. Even if you restrict the selection of such feats to characters of specific classes, a player can easily select a spellcasting class at 1st level, choose two flaws that apply to spellcasters, gain the bonus feats, multiclass into a nonspellcasting class at 2nd level and thereafter proceed as a primarily nonspellcasting character. The player has sacrificed a level to gain two bonus feats, a tradeoff that appeals to some players.



Noncombatant

You are relatively inept at melee combat.
Effect

You take a -2 penalty on all melee attack rolls.

Who does this hurt, really?

The Dark Fiddler
2010-06-14, 06:38 PM
Yeah. Unfortunately, many of the flaws from Dragon donít follow the very advice spelled out in Unearthed Arcana. Most of them target specific class abilities, making the 1-level dip to get the flaw very easy. As DM, Iíd certainly only let you take ones such as that keyed for sorcerers. Maybe a fighter one, since youíre a battle sorcerer. But thatís about it.

What kind of flaws could possibly target Fighter class abilities? You lose a fighter bonus feat.? :smalltongue:

Hague
2010-06-14, 06:41 PM
You could make her half golem, then the inherent flaw is trying to not go totally insane and evil.

Sorcerers sometimes make melee touch attacks.

Makiru
2010-06-14, 06:51 PM
I remember there was another flaw in the same article as the arcane parasites that said, because you had been experimented on all your life, you take a penalty to saves against all spells of three schools of your choice. That could work for a created being that was constantly subjected to spells in order to build up a resistance, but which ultimately had the opposite effect.

Shhalahr Windrider
2010-06-14, 07:10 PM
Who does this hurt, really?
All classes have a BAB and can make melee attacks, so no single class or class feature is being singled out. And, honestly, a character making many melee attacks is probably not hurt all that much more than a character that makes few, as a character that makes many can be expected to have piles of bonus that more than make up for it.

Really, itís impossible to make any flaw that will hurt all characters and builds equally. The very reason flaws have penalties much larger than feats is because it is expected that most characters will be built to minimize their effects anyway. Indeed, such would actually even contribute to verisimilitude, since people rarely work in fields in which they are naturally weak. The advice on flaw creation in Unearthed Arcana is simply meant to curb this being taken to patently abusive levels.

And please, donít attribute a misquote to me. Thank you.


What kind of flaws could possibly target Fighter class abilities? You lose a fighter bonus feat.? :smalltongue:
Point. :smallamused:

Weapon and Armor Proficiencies would be the usual, I guess. Iím certainly not going to spend any time digging out the Class Acts Fighter Flaws right now.

SlyGuyMcFly
2010-06-14, 07:14 PM
What kind of flaws could possibly target Fighter class abilities? You lose a fighter bonus feat.? :smalltongue:

I'd trade a fighter bonus feat for a regular bonus feat. :smallbiggrin:

deuxhero
2010-06-14, 08:32 PM
Take Vulnerable and say your wings are an easy target that you can't armor.