Are flaws worth it at a 2:1 ratio, rolled randomly

[Voidstar01]

My DM decided that flaws work as follows: roll 3 flaws, veto 1, get 1 feat or roll 5 flaws, veto 1, get 2 feats.
Is it worth it to take the flaws for extra feats?


EDIT: for clarification, i'll be playing a human wizard, Party comp is: Human Knight, Human Barbarian, Elf optimized control wizard, gnome cleric(?*).

(*i'm unsure cause so far all most of the party has done is get stuck on a rope while I failed Fort saves against spider venom strength damage for 7 rounds and went into a coma, it was a wild first session)

[StevenC21]

That depends on many things that you haven't told us.

But I wouldn't take it.

[Voidstar01]

That depends on many things that you haven't told us.

But I wouldn't take it.

uhh… what else do you need?
i'm a human, the extra feats would probably go directly into more meta magic.

[StevenC21]

We don't know your class, your party composition, your overall plan for your character, splatbooks in use, charop level, rarity of magical items...

You've given us basically nothing.

[ExLibrisMortis]

If it's just the UA flaws, I'd say no. For a wizard, a lot of flaws aren't so bad (Noncombatant, Shaky, Vulnerable), but a lot are pretty bad, like Feeble (-2 initiative and Concentration), Frail, Slow, and Unreactive. If you rolled three flaws, the result might be managable, but rolling five, there's a big chance you get a bad flaw you can't compensate for.

If you play at a sufficiently high optimization level, you can probably do enough with feats to compensate for the flaws. Then again, if you play at a sufficiently high optimization level, you can get extra feats elsewhere, so...

[weckar]

Yeah, it really depends on the specific flaws in play.

[Elves]

What's the point of these kinds of gambles, honestly? Just like rolling stats, it could be fun if you do the random part first and then have the challenge of building a character around it, but otherwise I don't see the fun in randomly seeing whether your character for the rest of the campaign gets sprinkles or gets gimped.

[False God]

Depends on flaws. Some flaws REALLY suck for certain classes and builds. Also depends on if you're still limited by the flaw restrictions themselves. If you can get a flaw that has no bearing on your class, TAKE IT. If not, then any flaws over 2 are probably going to be detrimental to you.

2 flaws for a feat isn't bad, if you get to pick them. Randomly? I probably wouldn't take that deal.

[Buufreak]

I fully understand that flaw for a feat isn't the most balanced thing on earth, but this feels like it could completely nuke a character's usefulness.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

If the DM wants to ban flaws, he should ban flaws. Don't just make them suck so badly that nobody in their right mind would want to take them. A choice between nothing and horribad is no choice at all.

[heavyfuel]

Very important question. Can you roll for the flaws and then choose not to take them and the feat?

Or once rolled you MUST take them?

If it's the first case. Roll and see. If it's the second, then your DM is out of their mind.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

1. Can you roll, then decide not to take any of them? If so, then absolutely do it, twice if possible: roll for five, if they're impossible to take then roll for three.

2. Just UA flaws, or does the roll include any Dragon magazine flaws you would qualify for? If it's all the Dragon flaws as well, absolutely do it for three, five if you're feeling risky.

[pabelfly]

If you don't mind not having an optimized character, flaws can be fun. Not a good decision in terms of character optimization because you can always roll badly and be stuck with bad flaws, but you can have fun without necessarily optimizing every part of your character.

[16bearswutIdo]

If the DM wants to ban flaws, he should ban flaws. Don't just make them suck so badly that nobody in their right mind would want to take them. A choice between nothing and horribad is no choice at all.

I mean, obviously it is a choice, because the OP is debating whether or not he wants to do it lol.

Flaws as written are horribly unbalanced in favor of the PC, unless the DM rules that the flaw needs to impact the character's schtick (IE. a wizard cant take noncombatant)


To OP, might as well take it unless you're set on making this character a tier 1 giga-god. There's the chance you get a bad roll, but DND is all about the chance of getting bad rolls.

[Zaq]

Do you need more feats for what you're trying to do?

I mean, yes, on general principle if you're happy with your number of feats then you're not optimizing enough, but that's not what I mean. Do you need more feats right now to achieve your build goals right now? Is there a key element to your character that you could bring to the actual table and have come up in actual play that will be enabled by getting an extra feat or two early?

If so, yeah, diving into flaws is probably worth it. If not, though, don't take it just for the sake of taking it.

Cost/benefit analysis, my man. Always look at what's in it for you when considering a tradeoff like this. What's the actual promised benefit, and how much of an effect will it have on real play? That'll help you gauge how much risk you should be willing to take on for the reward.

[Ramza00]

Feeble (-2 initiative and Concentration), Frail, Slow, and Unreactive.

Depends on level of play, magic items, etc.

Feeble stinks but it can be managed somewhat returning to normal but not optimized initiative. I would be tempted to veto Feeble but I could work around it if you get an even worse flaw as one of your other rolls.

Frail is covered by Amulet of Tears or False Life for a cheap price, you are trading gold for half a feat.

Slow is not a problem once flight occurs. Also a mount for land movement not covered by flight. Even a wand of Swift Expeditious Retreat (750 gp to allow swift action and double move) is able to quickly get around the flaw's limitation.

Unreactive SUCKS and should be vetoed.

-----

But yeah what level you are playing, what is your character class and thus method of contributing to the encounter, and what is your wealth situation matters a whole lot on whether this deal is worth it. Sometimes a Feat or Two given via taking flaws is necessary to make a build come together at a specific level, and sometimes the extra feats are nice but not worth the downside.

[weckar]

Frail is covered by Amulet of Tears or False Life for a cheap price, you are trading gold for half a feat.

And a top-tier magic item slot.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

And a top-tier magic item slot.

Huzzah for the MIC's magic item stacking rules?

[weckar]

Huzzah for the MIC's magic item stacking rules?

"Guidelines"

[MaxiDuRaritry]

"Guidelines"

No. The ones in the DMG are guidelines. The ones in the MIC are rules.

[Elves]

Although personally I find adding things other than the listed "common item effects" distasteful, mostly because of flavor clash.

But the ones on the table are definitely good for the game, and unambiguously allowed.

[Ramza00]

And a top-tier magic item slot.

Okay I am going to grant you this even though I want to argue it. So for sake of argument lets grant the amulet item slot is awesome all the time. [Pivots to a different point and argues that instead.]

But this is specifically a Wizard we are talking about. Amulet of Tears is awesome for all classes but less so for a Wizard.

Why is it beneficial for a Wizard? Well a Wizard can get the 2nd level spell False Life which has a greater duration, and it does not take an action out of combat. The problem is a cost of a 2nd level Spell Slot which is expensive temporary for a Wizard but long term it is a cheap cost.

Contrast with Amulet of Tears being 2,300 GP for 12 hit points, 3 times a day. At this price level it is a cheap item and while there is a lot of cooler Amulets they cost a lot more so they are not taking up the preciousAmulet slot when you use Amulet of Tears Item Level. Once you can actually afford all the cooler amulets anyway you can swap at least one of your 2nd level spells into False Life at the same character level and sell your old Amulet of Tears.

Or go the MiC stacking route.

Huzzah for the MIC's magic item stacking rules?

"Guidelines"

No. The ones in the DMG are guidelines. The ones in the MIC are rules.

The Amulet is from MiC and it is likely if the DM allows MiC for the Amulet he would also being doing the MiC stacking rules. Of course the DM can do whatever he wants due to rule 0, but we should not just assume things with the DM and make false arguments you can't do this for some DMs will not like it. We should instead ask the OP if she or he foresees a problem.

[weckar]

No. The ones in the DMG are guidelines. The ones in the MIC are rules.

I don't think it is unfair to say that anything outside core really isn't just "Guidelines", as the configuration of books at any particular table can differ outside of core. But I will concede the point that if MIC is in play they are effectively rules.

[Quertus]

One of my favorite characters had Slow, Slow, and Unreactive. So, as terrible as those flaws (and that trait) may seem, they have their place. The question is, would you be devastated if they were on your character?

[Bavarian itP]

If it's the second, then your DM is out of their mind.

Hitler was out of his mind. Charles Manson was out of his mind. But a DM who offers an option to players who like to take risks is certainly not "out of his mind". Let's dial down the drama a bit, it's getting ridiculous.

[Particle_Man]

I would say no unless you are willing to change your character class and build if you get flaws that are specifically bad for the first build you had in mind.

I would say yes if you start with the flaws roll first, then build the character. Basically the same way I would respond to random ability score generation.

[OGDojo]

i have never had a DM do this, i wouldn't take it. you risk a lot as a spellcaster if you get the wrong set,
Cowardly: run from combat
Magic Overload: you prefer low level spells
Ponderous Spellcaster: you take longer to cast spells
and several others, if you happen to get two or even three of these by chance? your looking at some pretty bad times.

most DM's will let you choose which flaws you want rather than have you roll them randomly cuz its technically part of YOUR CHARACTER's creation. with the ability to choose, you can choose things like

Shakey: -2 to hit with a ranged attack
Metal Intolerance: you become allergic to metal
Warrior of the Phalanx: you have difficulties fighting alone (as a spellcaster you should never be alone anyways)

these are all flaws that a spellcaster SHOULD take because most of the time the most powerful ranged spells are "Reflex save" unless your making ranged touch attacks but limiting your spell list to AOEs and Touch spells should be pretty easy.

as i said i have never had a DM have me roll randomly for 5 flaws and i have never had to exchange 2 flaws for a feat

our group does 2 flaws for 2 feats, you pick them but you can only have a max of 2 flaws.

[Asmotherion]

Eh i'd probably go for it as you can never have enough feats and most flaws are usually trivial enough to overcome through optimisation.

Value increases expotentially if this is not restricted to level 1 only (so you can meet more pre-reqs).

[Themrys]

I wouldn't do it.

Just from a roleplay point of view. I have a clear idea of what the character is like, usually, and I wouldn't like to have that ruined by random flaws.

I mean, I like flaws. They make characters more interesting. But, and that's the thing, they have to fit.

Admittedly, I probably wouldn't be happy with that DM anyway, because only someone who doesn't care about roleplaying would do things this way, but if I decided that the more competition-oriented kind of D&D was still better than no D&D, I still wouldn't do it. Because random flaws can make your character unplayable.

Have a talk with the DM. If the DM in fact wants a roleplay-heavy game and thinks the players are all powergamers who will only take flaws that don't affect their characters anyway, there's room for compromise.

If it is all about "I have to make players' lives as difficult as possible" then ... yeah, well, not really my style. You would want to know that sort of thing in advance.


So, however you decide, I would ask: "Why do you want PCs to have random flaws the players don't get to pick? What do you think you will achieve by doing it?"

The answer might give some insight into the general playing style.

[weckar]

only someone who doesn't care about roleplaying would do things this way

I have to disagree with this. Dealing with disabilities you did not choose can be great fuel for roleplaying.