Before incorporating the concept of flaws into game play, I'd like to know what the experiences were for other gamers.
Do flaws enhance game play?
How to DMs enforce flaws?
Are players just using flaws as a way to boost characters in other ways and ignoring the roleplaying responsibilities?
I ask because when we played Swashbuckling Adventures, those rules incorporated Virtues and Wiles, which work in the same fashion as flaws. The reaction was mixed, and in many cases, we felt created unbalanced game play.
|
Each character will attempt to take the flaw that causes them the least amount of inconvenience. For that reason, each flaw is intended to be fairly serious. I have used them several times as a player (I'm addicted to feats) and I generally allow them as a DM.
The flaws as presented in Unearthed Arcana don't require role-playing to work. They all have a numerical penalty to an ability or skill. Some should allow proper role-playing, but the rules will make it "work". I have taken the flaw unreactive (-6 penalty to initative checks). It often means I'm going last and will be flat footed through the first round of combat. However, the character with that flaw is a cleric, and I normally don't mind going last (it helps me decide who needs healing anyway).
The point is, the penalty is significant, and I can't get around it.
Other flaws, such as unobservant, always create a penalty (-4 spot and listen). If you don't put any ranks in those skills, you essentially commit to never making a listen or spot check over 10.
I've played other systems (Deadlands, for example) where the flaws (and traits) were more fun, but they have have had balance issues. Every flaw in Unearthed Arcana works for each character - just make sure the character applies the penalty to all relevant situations. Even if it doesn't apply often, when it does, it normally makes things much harder.
Hope that helps.
Joe, Dead DM Walking,
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I really appreciate it.
Joe, you addressed some of the concerns I had about players "cheating" the system, pickign flaws that don't really affect them just to gain an extra feat and how a DM can police that. Thanks.
DeadDMWalking. Thanks for such a thorough explanation.
You mentioned the flaws from Unearthed Arcana, which is fine. (BTW: I agree, Deadlands is wicked fun!)
I should have specified that I was curious about the flaws that have been appearing as Class Acts articles these last few months. Has anyone any experiences with the playability of these?
Again, thanks.
What is this Deadlands everyone is talking about? (a lil offtopic...but curious)
Mmmmmmmm, raw meat!
It's role playing in the Old West, but the Old West that never quite was. Remember the wanted poster: Wanted Dead or Alive?
Well, in Deadlands, they're wanted Dead, Alive or Undead.
Unfortunately, even though the game is only a few years old, it's already out of print. But there are copies out there, if you look for them and if you want to pay top dollar. Most of the stuff has orange covers.
There is also a softcover d20 version, but it's not quite the same.
I hope that whets your appetite, Taricus.
|
|
I haven't had any players interested in the flaws presented in Dragon lately - except a few thinking it would be fun to "light up" or "ghost sound" spontaneously.
Those ones would certainly involve a little more DM work. I have to admit that I haven't tried them. My biggest complaint is that if you want to include something, you're forced to drag the entire issue around from game to game. Very annoying. That, or you can't refer to it in a pinch.
Deadlands is one of the most original role-playing games ever developed, and it won the Origins awards its first year out. What did it have? Flavor.
To create characters you don't roll dice. You draw cards. High cards correspond to good abilities, and low cards to poor abilities. This is a little difficult to explain, but a good ability score would be represented by a higher die. A d12 is EXCELLENT, a d4 is poor. A d8 is average. Anytime you needed to perform a skill check, you would roll the die that corresponds to that ability. So, if you were playing D&D and you had a d10 in Dex, you would roll d10s to make balance checks. The more "skill ranks" you had, the more dice you would roll. If you roll the max (a 10 in this case) you'd roll another die and add.
Typically you would get a success for a difficult maneuver with a 15 or so. So, on a d8 you'd have to "ace" once (roll and 8) and roll a 7 or 8.
Long before Unearthed Arcana Deadlands also had "Edges and Hindrances". Edges are like feats, and Hindrances are like Flaws. Some were based on role-playing, some had mixed effects and some were all bad. They normally come in different "flavors". For example, you could take a hindrance that was -1, -2 or -3 points (I may have the numbers wrong, but you get the idea). For -1 you might be cross-eyed, for 2 points you might be blind in one eye, and for 3 points you could be completely blind. Of course they would all have penalties on attempts to shoot.
The "setting" involved the apocalypse (they call it the "Reckoning") happening about the time of the Civil War. You play in the Midwest and California. Nobody knows whats in the East (bad stuff, that is for sure). You go around killing undead mostly, and trying to avoid getting killed.
It had a lot of fun and innovative things. It had "fate chips" which were very similar to action points from the Eberron campaign setting.
I'm supposed to run a new D&D campaign starting in January. Somehow, now, I just want to play Deadlands. Thanks a lot for getting me started....
Well, Taricus, if you don't have any Deadlands books, you can always just put six shooters in your the hands of your d20 characters and let em have at it.
It's not quite the same, but some hot lead on a cold day is a great way to ring in the new year.
Happy trails!
I am DMing in the Forgotten Realms and want to incorporate
flaws from the articles. So I´ll let the players choose from
flaws for their class. To balance it out they have to take
one of the regional feats for their home region. So a fighter
can´t take only combat feats or a mage magical ones. But I
haben´t tried it out yet. Hope it works out.
Although I haven't tried either, I believe traits are probably a better idea. The advantage is related to the disadvantage, which not only makes more sense but is more balanced.
If I did do flaws I'd probably try Milwan's idea, which looks like it will help balance things out well.
Brand new to this post, and am having some problems with Paizo's delivery of my subscription, so I'm a little behind on this "flaws for feats" trick. Bear with me, please...
With these flaws, or traits, or whathaveyou, what are the rules of exchange? For example, what are the limits? Could a player conceivably take several flaws in exchange for several extra feats? ...if so, I can easily understand a DM's trepidation in allowing them in an ongoing campaign. While there are good role-players out there who play just for the challenge of it, and there are those purists who prefer to "let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may," there are and likely always will be Rules Rapists: those who want to squeeze the absolute maximum benefit out of each and every rule to get something for nothing, or at least much for little, at the expense of game balance. With such players (and DMs, we've ALL known some of them, I know), the possibilities for Player Abuse is staggering!
Brand new to this post, and am having some problems with Paizo's delivery of my subscription, so I'm a little behind on this "flaws for feats" trick. Bear with me, please...
With these flaws, or traits, or whathaveyou, what are the rules of exchange? For example, what are the limits? Could a player conceivably take several flaws in exchange for several extra feats? ...if so, I can easily understand a DM's trepidation in allowing them in an ongoing campaign. While there are good role-players out there who play just for the challenge of it, and there are those purists who prefer to "let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may," there are and likely always will be Rules Rapists: those who want to squeeze the absolute maximum benefit out of each and every rule to get something for nothing, or at least much for little, at the expense of game balance. With such players (and DMs, we've ALL known some of them, I know), the possibilities for Player Abuse is staggering!
Don't remember how the article went, but here's another thing: Anti-feats.
If you don't know what I'm talking about, you are probably not familliar with Kingdoms of Kalamar. From the same people who brought you Hackmaster and Knights of the Dinner Table.
Basically, you can choose 1 random feat per level (d1,000) and after you get your second anti-feat, you can choose another feat. They work the opposite of regular feats. For instance, the Weapon Focus feat gives you certain bonuses, while the Weapon Focus anti-feat gives you just the opposite, forcing a game rule enforcement, not just a role-play enforcement for the munchkinizers in your group.
One note: If you lose a prerequisite feat to an anti-feat, you lose access to that whole feat tree until you re-select the feat you lost when you took the random anti-feat.
Anti-feats can be found in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Villain Design Handbook, Ver. 3.0 (hardcover) or Ver. 3.5 (softcover) for $ 19.99 (IIRC).
Another good thing about this book, is that they give examples of Good villains; not the guys you love to hate, but actual good-aligned villains, and the reasons they might be villains to your group and their motivations.
|
|
Flaws are a variant rule presented in Unearthed Arcana. Traits are also covered in that book.
A flaw is a "negative feat". Generally they equate to a negative feat that is 1 1/2 x what the equivalent feat would be. For example, the feat "Improved Initiative" provides a +4 bonus on Initiative checks. The flaw "Unreactive" provides a -6 to initative check. Likewise instead of providing a +2 bonus to saves (Iron Will) they provide a -3.
You may only take flaws at character creation, and you may not take more than 2 flaws. For each flaw you take, you may take an extra feat. Remember, this is a variant rule, so it is subject to DM approval, and they may place whatever restrictions they would like on the types of feats that can be chosen.
A trait is similar, but it provides both a bonus and a penalty. For example, you might gain a bonus on diplomacy checks of +1, and take a -1 on bluff checks. The bonus and penalty offset. You might also take a trait that grants a +1 bonus to a saving throw, and provides a -1 to another saving throw.
Just as with flaws, you may only take a maximum of two traits, and they must be chosen at character creation.
Hope that helps.
hmmmm Might have to check it out hehe :)
I loved the orignal version of this game. There is a D20 version and it is not near as interesting. My PC was a fat, tequila drinking, cigar smoking mexican bandito named "El Burito". OOOOOOH what fun I had playing him in a party with two bible thumping evangilists.
Deadlands is one of my most favorit RPGs. Rules are quick to
learn and you can built the character you want to play what-
ever that may be. Worth a Shot, IMO.
(Perhaps my next character should be that japanese ronin I
always wanted to bring to the "east"!!)
Starbin makes a couple of good points, especially about the distinction in character builds. Enworld just ran a poll asking gamers to choose: Archetypal builds such as D&D or menu builds, such as GURPS and the like. We didn't mention those other systems because it hasn't come up, not out of any desire to ignore them.
Under 3.0 and 3.5, D&D is now a more robust system, since it incorporates the two types. The advantage is more choices in character creation, meaning you can craft a character you desire and have the numbers to back up any assertions about the PC. (Something that was sorely lacking in 2nd edition).
On the other hand, it takes a long time to build a character, and for the DM, a long, long time to build NPCs. But that's story for another post.
Anyway, the whole question is whether the flaws for feats exchange unbalances the system. Based on the experiences of the posters here, it appears that most flaws work because there is a genuine give-and-take. It's only when PCs take flaws that really have no numerical penalty to a particular class are they cheating the system.
In that case, it's the DMs call, as it is in any game. The problem in my group is that there is amix of players. Some min/max, others build for story or concept. If I make a blanket allowance for flaws, I'll get some immediate abusers. But I'm willing to try it on a provisional basis, and see where it goes.
I'd like to add in a dissenting point here. As a general rule, the player is allowed to pick two flaws; in exchange, they are allowed to pick two new feats. By allowing this choice, you are effectively allowing a player to pick feats well before they are the appropriate level. It allows for a significant jump in power for PCs, and can be unbalancing, both in a PC vs. PC comparison or a Party Vs. Encounter.
Squid
Well squid thats true to some extend but many of the prereqs. take care of that. No matter how much you want great cleave you still cant get it at creation. Most of the useful combat feats have attack bonus restrictions. And most meta-magic feats are useless unless you have the caster levels. I do agree that in an empty field at 20 paces in the open the 2 extra feats can be devistating. However if your running a game full of Arena battles then maybe you shouldnt allow unobservent in your game. The issue is really designing creative and fun encounters that balance things out....
Run a murder mystery for the 1st lvl pc who loaded up on unobservant to get cleave, power attack and inproved init at first level. Don't throw her into an arena pit with three dire rats. (well not till the chase sceen.)
very off topic but i noticed above that someone said something about super hero rpgs....are these still in print and if they are can anyone suggest a good one...very very off topic sry
very off topic but i noticed above that someone said something about super hero rpgs....are these still in print and if they are can anyone suggest a good one...very very off topic sry
The only one I've ever played is Mutants & Masterminds, from Green Ronin. I love their system of character creation. There's a few infinite power loops - but find my an RPG that doesn't have these.
very off topic but i noticed above that someone said something about super hero rpgs....are these still in print and if they are can anyone suggest a good one...very very off topic sry
I've always been a fan of the Hero system. version 5 is in print and being supported. You role lots of dice in game but character creation is build it how you want it...no dice. Pretty good game if you have a deadacated DM. But that can be said of any game I guess.
very off topic but i noticed above that someone said something about super hero rpgs....are these still in print and if they are can anyone suggest a good one...very very off topic sryI've always been a fan of the Hero system. version 5 is in print and being supported. You role lots of dice in game but character creation is build it how you want it...no dice. Pretty good game if you have a deadacated DM. But that can be said of any game I guess.Yub, Hero system is awesome! The ultimate in flexibility. I think DC Heroes is still around, too. I'm sure Hero's Unlimited is still supported ... at least I see the books in the stores still. And you can always go to GURPS Supers, if nothing else. But I'm with hewhorocks ... Hero system (specifically referred to as Champions) is really nice. Lots of new material out, as well, like campaign supplements, character creation, organization useage, etc.
BG
so the books will be under the name Champions or Hero System???? and if you dont mind me asking wwats GURPS Supers???
thx a ton for all your help ill look into those sites :)
SHIBBY
I know this thread hasn't been posted on for a long time, but i stumbled upon it and i am now very intrigued...i was a subscriber to dragon, but i stopped renewing and i seriously think i am missing out...would anyone mind posting a few more example flaws to spur me into resubscribing?
Senior Software Developer
|
I know this thread hasn't been posted on for a long time, but i stumbled upon it and i am now very intrigued...i was a subscriber to dragon, but i stopped renewing and i seriously think i am missing out...would anyone mind posting a few more example flaws to spur me into resubscribing?
Flaws for commoners in Dragon #330 were totally awesome.
"Divine flavor," indeed!
|
|
I mostly use flaws for my npcs!
I have a group of only two players, I gave them an NPC-Wizard (bot players are no spell-throwing types). They started to rely too much on him (a gnome) and let him do the work as often as they could (or I let him)...
Anyway, with flaws like "Arcane Fatigue" and "Short of Breath" (from Dragon #333) the whole thing is no issue anymore! The gnome got those feats after a terrible disease (as he was already in play and you normally are allowed to take flaws only at 1st level I thought this a good idea).
Flaws can be great, but great are the chances that players take flaws which will not really hinder them to get one or two more good feats...
...Flaws can be great, but great are the chances that players take flaws which will not really hinder them to get one or two more good feats...
True, true, and while a munchkin's gonna find anything they can to MIN/MAX themselves the prerequisites usually keep the free-for-all from happening. I like the flaws that add some descriptive flavor as well as have some game effect like "Short of Breath" or "Phantom Sparks". Sure, both the player and the DM need to remember the effects the flaws cause (in the event they aren't instantaneous like the ones that remove the ability to have a familiar/animal companion) but I think flaws can definitely add an interesting tweak to role-playing.
- Chris Shadowens
We use flaws in my campaign but more often than not, I make up my own (as the DM) for the players to choose from. Maintaining game balance is incredibly simple (and I've entered the debate about reducing MIN/MAXing in other threads) ... just because Paizo or WOTC or whoever presents the rules a certain way, doesn't mean the DM is required to use a game mechanic that exact way. In terms of maintaining game balance I simply require a detailed and plausible explanation to why a character would possess a specific flaw and/or feat. The two must be related and the advantage gained by the feat must be exactly equal or less than the penalty accrued by the flaw. I, the DM and ultimate authority in my universe, am at sole discretion to refuse any suggested flaw/feat exchange or sometimes - the player can choose the feat gained but I (as DM) get to choose which flaw they must suffer with in exchange (which is great fun, of course).
I think the whole concept of flaws adds wonderful flavor and inspires great role-playing opportunities.
Has anyone found they allow you to race into Prestige Classes a tad too quickly? I'm not sure that all PrCs have skill ranks and/or BAB requirements as well as feats, so PrCs that require more feats rather than skill ranks might become to easily accessible?
Wizards or Sorcerers who aren't going to max out their levels in classes that stack for familiar traits could just take the no-familiar flaw (can't remember what that's called) so that they could get something a tad more useful if they plan to prestige class themselves... and I'm not sure there's much punch to that as a flaw (ie: taking 'Arcane Trickster,' after 5 levels of wizard, and using 5 levels of Rogue, and 10 of Arcane Trickster - why would the wizard bother with a familiar in the first place? Most of my PCs who are going to multiclass or prestige class with wizard or sorcerer never bother picking up a familiar in the first place, this is why I've not introduced flaws as of yet, since they'd all take it...)
|
Contributor
|
One of the cool things about being a GM is you can change the way you use certain elements of the game. Flaws in particular have great uses aside from the way they are presented.
Rather than give characters the standard feat per flaw, I sometimes let players use flaws to knock down LAs on a 1 to 1 basis. Its cool if you have some one who wants to play say a hagspawn when your trying to start a new campaign.
Another good use for them is to use them as a substitute for xp penalties for multiclassing.
As far as preventing abuse for sneaking into PrC classes at lower levels goes, any balanced PrC is going to have a Skill, Spell level, or BAB requirement that limits easy access to the class. If you have introduced a PrC to your campaign that doesn't have one of these requirements, by all means, add that one yourself. I run a game with 20 players, so balance is a real important issue for me, if it even seems like I've given an unfair advantage to one character over the others I have a bunch of angry New Yorkers ready and willing to beat my... anyway you get the picture. Thus far, using flaws hasn't upset the balance on my table.