Quick flaws remake(3.5 D&D, Flaws)

[bobthe6th]

So flaws... easily broken, and very powerful in any event.

The problem I tend to see with it is the feat is utterly disasociated with the penalty. "Oh no, my wizard has -2 to hit with melee attacks! I doubt the spell focus I got in exchange will make up for this."
Leading to easy min/max ing and related problems.

So, my idea is to tie each flaw to one-three feats that seem equal or worse then the penalty.

So Noncombatant lets you pick either run, dodge, or lightning reflexes as a free feat.

{table=head]flaw|penalty|feat options
Feeble| -2 on Str, Dex, and Con based checks| Skill focus(any 5 int, cha, or wis based skills)
Frail| -1 HP/HD|(Dodge+mobility) or Combat Expertise
Inattentive| -4 to Listen and Spot| Skill focus(any 3 skills)
Meager Fortitude|-3 to Fortitude |
Murky-Eyed|roll twice and take lowest against concealment| Power attack
Noncombatant|-2 to melee attacks|run, dodge, or lightning reflexes
Pathetic|Reduce one ability scores by 2|
Poor Reflexes|-3 penalty to Reflex saves| (Iron will or Great Fortitude)+ toughness
Shaky|-2 to ranged attacks| Weapon focus(any melee weapon), lightning reflexes+dodge
Slow|Your base land speed is halved|
Unreactive| -6 to initiative checks|
Vulnerable| -1 to Armor Class| Iron will, Great Fortitude,
Weak Will| -3 to Will saves| (Lightning reflexes or Great Fortitude)+ toughness
[/table]

this isn't completed, feel free to make any suggestions.

[ngilop]

I like what you are doing.

you hit the nail on teh head in regards to what 100% of all flaws taken are for.

do you know how many melee oriented characters ive seen on these forus that have the shaky flaw? enough to make me sad at this forum, thats how many, but i guess that is bcuase I just maybe do not get the gist of flaws.. im not sure.

[TuggyNE]

I'm sure there's a reason the listed feats read like a compilation of the worst core feats, but it still makes me sad. Even noting that they probably need to be beefed up would be a help, but as it is, taking let's say Frail for anything other than prerequisites (or deliberate self-nerfing for the sake of flavor) would be a terrible idea.

And ngilop, actually, UA specifically explains that characters should be expected to take flaws that are less likely to affect them, and that flaws will increase the game's power level slightly. So yeah, I think you are missing the point.

[ngilop]

I guess so, I just miss teh dyas when flaws were just roleplayed, with no need for you to be mechanically rewadred for say.. being deaf or lame.

maybe i am just in the wrong generation of gaming as well as life?

[eftexar]

You would be just as well off giving two bonus feats for free rather than using the flaw/feat system. While the point may be to take flaws that won't affect you much, that sort of defeats the point in my mind.

Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with character flaws having rewards, but on the other hand I feel like it should give something thematically appropriate instead of just the "have a cookie" feeling that permeates gaming now. Like the gaining blindsense for being blind sort of thing or even stuff ridiculous methods from history like super strength as long as you have long hair. Sort of an Achilles heel sort of thing going on.

Your way, granting bonuses worse than the penalties, I think is a bad idea. Why would I ever take it? Before flaws were too good, but now they penalize you for barely anything in return.
Take how crippling frail is for how weak it's feats are. I could arguably say that I would be better off with the 20 hit points I lost by level 20 than a small bonus to AC or a bit of knowledge.
I think the feat should be just slightly better than, or at least equal to, the flaw if this is the route you're going.

edit: I agree with you to some extent ngilop, as I've mentioned above, and this is honestly how I feel about a lot of games anymore, especially xbox achievements: relevant link (http://ns223506.ovh.net/rozne/1e52c44eff07bfd4b286e6aed1907269/wallpaper-1414622.jpg) since image won't show for some reason.

[bobthe6th]

I'm sure there's a reason the listed feats read like a compilation of the worst core feats, but it still makes me sad. Even noting that they probably need to be beefed up would be a help, but as it is, taking let's say Frail for anything other than prerequisites (or deliberate self-nerfing for the sake of flavor) would be a terrible idea.


The feats are relative to the cost. -2 to attack in melee is like negative weapon focus... so it is worth a **** feat like weapon focus.
Yes taking frail isn't a good idea... unless you want an extra feat like combat expertise, or a jump on the dodge feat chain. The character has a weak constitution and falls over easily, they do not get free power attack for that.

I am restricting the list to core. feel free to suggest non core feats that have a comparable cost.


And ngilop, actually, UA specifically explains that characters should be expected to take flaws that are less likely to affect them, and that flaws will increase the game's power level slightly. So yeah, I think you are missing the point.

So, free feats were the point? I thought the point was to allow a system were you could mechanically represent flaws in your character(like being weak, or frail), and represent strengths gained thereby. I understand the sentiment, and have built characters that abused the hell out of the system.

Isn't one of the better balance points for Brew "If there is no reason for the players not to use it, it is to powerful. If there is no reason for the players to use it, it is to weak."? Something like that.

So I looked at the flaws system, and saw no reason not to use it. The penalties can very easily be ignored/mitigated, and free feats are never ignored.

No, with this system, I can see reasons not to use it. The penalty is generally greater then the gain. At the same time, I see reason to use it.
You could get a jump on some feat chains, at a cost. Or you could shore up a bad save... again at a cost.

edit:


Your way, granting bonuses worse than the penalties, I think is a bad idea. Why would I ever take it? Before flaws were too good, but now they penalize you for barely anything in return.
Take how crippling frail is for how weak it's feats are. I could arguably say that I would be better off with the 20 hit points I lost by level 20 than a small bonus to AC or a bit of knowledge.
I think the feat should be just slightly better than, or at least equal to, the flaw if this is the route you're going.

I'm running off the SRD man, cut me some slack. Dodge is a really common feat tax, and WE opens up a very nice feat chain. But I was just grabbing feats that felt right. Feel free to suggest better ones you feel are equivalent to the cost. I tried to give nonscaling feats for the nonscaling penalties, and scaling feats for the scaling penalties. I acknowledge that the SRD feats need to be rewritten... alot... I was trying for something generally accepted.

[eftexar]

Sorry, I hadn't meant to come off as angry or mean. I guess my tendency to be blunt sometimes comes off that way when I'm online.

But why not offer feat couplets? For some examples:

Dodge and Mobility, for Frail, open up some good options and the two together aren't so bad.
Inattentive could offer Skill Focus in any other three skills.
Poor Reflexes could offer Great Fortitude and Toughness.

[bobthe6th]

That sounds workable, and fits the fluff of some of the flaws better. The guy with bad reflexes learns to just take the hit.

So have frail offer (dodge+mobility) or weapon expertise?

Will mess with the table.

[TuggyNE]

Yeah, that's getting closer. Flaws should, ideally, be something you have to really consider; it should be practical to make characters of moderately high op without going "man, I would be so much happier if I could just take five more flaws" OR thinking "why did I take any flaws at all, those feats weren't worth it". UA flaws tend a bit too much toward the first, but in your tweaking, make sure you don't end up in the second.

For a lot of these, you might want to offer a choice between any two of a particular list or any of a different list. For example, Noncombatant might offer any two of Run, Dodge, Lightning Reflexes; Pathetic might offer any two of Skill Focus: Bluff, Improved Feint, Persuasive; and so on.