I would like to hear your feedback on how the flaws have been used by your characters, or the characters in your campaign.
I think the real trick is DM involvment.
If you as a DM make sure that the flaw the character takes is balanced against the power of the benefit, you should be fine. If you feel the choice is a blatant min/max with out benefit to story or balance, then say no and give your reasons why. Ideally your players should be interested in working with you to create a great story and should be amenable to this suggestion. However, we are all suseptible to min/maxing inclinations.
Now I should point out that I only have an issue with min/maxing in the instances where it makes the PCs not balanced with one another. I can adjust the game world to be balanced to them as necessary, but I don't want one PC to overshadow all the others. To this end I actively help my less experienced players min/max so as to get the most enjoyment from their characters with out the more experienced players feeling they need to hold back.
Sean Mahoney
Port Orchard, Washington
|
I've enjoyed flaws as both a player and a DM. Regarding the article "flaws for non-humans", there were a few disappointments. First of all, some of the requirements seem a little unfair. For example, two of the three flaws for dwarves, if I remember correctly, required a +1 BAB. Both of those flaws would be perfect for a militant cleric. I understand that the pre-reqs are designed to make sure the flaw actually hurts the character, but I think that those were a little unfair.
Additionally, the fact that they were presented as flaws for non-humans when there weren't always racial requirements seems somewhat strange. I'm actually happy that the article had a theme to tie it together, but still....
A possible compromise would be allowing ANY dwarf to take those flaws, or any other race with a BAB of +1 at 1st level.
Hope that helps.
Only one of my group has asked to take a flaw (and he's the uber min/maxer so it set off my alarm bells right away :) ). I can't remember the name off the top of my head but it was the cleric flaw that applied the arcane spell failure for divine spells too.
(yep, on his way to becoming a mystic theurge so he never intends to wear armor anyway :) )
I've been DMing him for almost 20 years now, so I'm used to his tricks and I take them into account when I write my adventures. As long as everyone has fun what's the harm?
Personally, I've enjoyed all of those flaw articles, I like the way you think and in the right hands they could really help give shape to a character.
On a related note, have you ever thought of doing flaws for characters with monster ancestors? There's a lot of shapechangers and other creatures who could theoretically interbreed with a human or elf or dwarf. The legacy (or taint) of such an ancestor could linger on in the blood for many generations, occasionally producing a throwback or or a mutation.
(aranea, doppelganger, dryad, genie, hag, harpy, etc)
I personally think flaws should be more harsh. Players shouldn't see them as opportunities, but rather as a major sacrifice in exchange for moving a little further down the feat tree. Thus, the penalty for having a given flaw should outweigh the benefit gained from a feat. It seems like more severe flaws would be more interesting and force players to make more difficult choices. Being "curious" doesn't seem like a terrible flaw. Having one arm? That's a flaw.
I will henceforth refer to this as the "Crocodile Dundee Rule of Flaw Design."
"That's not a flaw. *This* is a flaw!"
I personally think flaws should be more harsh. Players shouldn't see them as opportunities, but rather as a major sacrifice in exchange for moving a little further down the feat tree. Thus, the penalty for having a given flaw should outweigh the benefit gained from a feat. It seems like more severe flaws would be more interesting and force players to make more difficult choices. Being "curious" doesn't seem like a terrible flaw. Having one arm? That's a flaw.I will henceforth refer to this as the "Crocodile Dundee Rule of Flaw Design."
"That's not a flaw. *This* is a flaw!"
I have to confess that I haven't really liked the way flaws have been setup in 3e. Nothing against Richard, whose work within the framework already set up has been great, but I tend to agree with zeppelined... the flaws just don't seem to merit being further down the feat tree.
That being said, SINCE I don't really like them, I haven't tried playing them, and it is certainly possible that they work fine in game play. Ironically, feats have resulted in me mostly playing humans since 3e came out, and I would be most inclined to use feats if I was playing a non-human character.
- Ashavan
I am in very much in favor of flaws being introduced into D&D. Unearthed Arcana did a nice introduction to flaws, but the class, and now race, specific flaws are a much needed improvement. I see flaws as a way to help flesh out a character. To give ideas for how your character would act under certain situations. And to give non-humans a chance to get more than one feat at first level.
No one in my campaign has opted to take any flaws. I think the reason is that it is the first time that most of them have played 3.5 and they are trying to keep the new material to a minimum. I am just waiting for monk flaws. I am wanting to play a monk for the next campaign, but I want to see what monk specific flaws there can be. I am waiting patiently and hoping the others in my campaign take a flaw or two.
Jason
|
I like them.
The recent class-specific and race-specific flaws have been nicely balanced _and_ more flavourful than the ones in Unearthed Arcana. What's nice about them is that they are small enough additions that they can be added to any game.
They also give players access to a few more feats, which is cool, given that there are 1000s and 1000s of feats, but most characters still only get 7 or 8 over their lifetime. Flaws give players a few more options.
In the game I GM (the Adventure Path), one of the player's paladin has taken the chivalric courtesy flaw. It fits really well with his oath and has been a real drawback in some of the combats. He's earned his bonus feat.
Though I read Dragon, most of my gaming is still done in 2nd Edition, where as both a DM and player, flaws and other such undesirables were taken by or given to players without any real in-game benefit. The true benefit of playing a character with flaws, being wanted by the law, or anything else is that those characters were a whole lot more fun to play. So I would weigh in that flaws should be serious ones and that they should outweigh any in-game benefit a character would receive.
|
|
The trade-off of a flaw's faults for a feat's benefits should be fairly even, IMO. The main thing I like about flaws is that they provide some nice rules grounding behind a roleplaying opportunity. That said, I'd like to see more work with general flaws and traits, rather than class-specific or race-specific. Flaws (and traits) could be expanded to deal with both physical and mental variables.
E.g., a homemade one I made was "Blind in One Eye." With it, the character suffers from poor depth perception, and suffers a -1 to attack and spot and search beyond 30 ft., though I don't think you can really search beyond 30 ft. This sort of flaw can be taken by anyone, regardless of race or class and provides a nice little character for your PC.
Heck, you could even make flaw variants, with harsher flaws allowing for more feats in exchange. Imagine this: "Legally Blind." Anyone beyond a radius of 5 ft. from the PC gets the benefit from total concealment. In exchange, you might get two or three feats.
In the end, the great thing about flaws (and traits) is that they provide game mechanics to supplement tremendously fun roleplaying opportunities. I'd like to see more ... a great many more.
The trade-off of a flaw's faults for a feat's benefits should be fairly even, IMO.
Agreed, however, it doesn't necessarily seem consistent with the example you give below. But even then that is somewhat subjective... see below.
...I'd like to see more work with general flaws and traits, rather than class-specific or race-specific. Flaws (and traits) could be expanded to deal with both physical and mental variables.
The problem is that different things are more or less debilitating to a character depending on that characters class. I saw a great example on the boards earier of player who wanted to get an extra feat for having his cleric not able to wear armor. This would seem reasonable until we also learn that the character has plans to multi-class as a wizard... well, not wearing armor isn't much of a hinderance at that point, since the player probably just wouldn't do it.
Another example might be someone taking a -1 to hit. This would be a huge hinderance for a low level fighter, but less so for a wizard or sorcerer (you can simply take spells that don't need attack roles). It would still be a hinderance but not to the same degree (and so should not garner the same reward).
So, basically, what I am saying is that with the specialization that occurs in a characters role, through class selection, each benefit or detriment has a different level of impact on the character. To take away then the class restriction opens that door of abuse wider.
E.g., a homemade one I made was "Blind in One Eye." With it, the character suffers from poor depth perception, and suffers a -1 to attack and spot and search beyond 30 ft., though I don't think you can really search beyond 30 ft. This sort of flaw can be taken by anyone, regardless of race or class and provides a nice little character for your PC.
I don't want to discourage someone from being creative, but I can think of few players who wouldn't feel getting an extra feat is worth a -1 to attack and spot and search checks beyond 30 ft (which would really not affect search that much). You don't really rely on your fighter for search and spot checks, but you would expect the rogue to be good at these skills. So a fighter taking this enhances his role with little detriment, while a rogue hurts his ability to do his job (though likely even a rogue would think this a worthwhile trade-off in this particular case).
Sean Mahoney
Port Orchard, Washington
I don't want to discourage someone from being creative, but I can think of few players who wouldn't feel getting an extra feat is worth a -1 to attack and spot and search checks beyond 30 ft (which would really not affect search that much). You don't really rely on your fighter for search and spot checks, but you would expect the rogue to be good at these skills. So a fighter taking this enhances his role with little detriment, while a rogue hurts his ability to do his job (though likely even a rogue would think this a worthwhile trade-off in this particular case).
I should probably respond to my own response here. I didn't read the proposed flaw as closely as I should have before shooting off my mouth. I didn't realize that there was a -1 to attack and just thought it was search and spot type skills... that makes a big difference.
However, I often play wizards and would likely think this flaw is great from a min/max point of view. I try to avoid spells with attack roles anyway (you can certainly specialize a wizard with feats and such to make the effective with ranged attack spells, but I don't in general... personal preference). I generally rely on the rogue for spot and search, and only get involved if I have a spell that increases my skill dramatically (and after getting a +10 or +20 from a skill, the -1 from the feat would be insignificant). But feats are few and precious for a spell caster. There are a LOT of item creation and metamagic feats out there.
A fighter type though would be fairly hurt in his ability at lvl 1 with a -1 to hit (as one of the main features of the class is a +1 to hit). The other feat is nice, but fighters get a lot of feats so the value isn't as high for them.
Anyway... just my 2 cents, take it for what it is worth.
Sean Mahoney
Port Orchard, Washington
|
It surely needs a mature group of players (not in term of age, but in term of behaviour) to get the benefits out of them that the designers had in mind as they created this cool feature.
We (my group & me) were really exited abnout this idea, 'cause we already had flaws without the benefits since 1st edition.
It was kind of a houserule that every player had to create something like a weak point for the character and it always helped to make the characters seem more "alive" or "realistic".
Some only had a little influence on the game (i remember one rogue who couldn't pass by a mirror without having a look at his hair...) and some were sometimes very difficult to work with (like a dwarven fighter with a serious fear of great heights).
We never thought about getting benefits for these traits, so we were happy in multiple ways as the flaws appeared in UA.
But there's really a kind of motivation within the rules to abuse them and to get the most benefit with the least drawbacks. But i don't know of a way to prevent this (from a designer's point of view).
The player's have to realize the opportunity they're presented with and how they and their game can benefit from this rule.
Otherwise i'd leave flaws out of the game...
Has the RPGA allowed flaws in their games?
|
|
I don't want to discourage someone from being creative, but I can think of few players who wouldn't feel getting an extra feat is worth a -1 to attack and spot and search checks beyond 30 ft (which would really not affect search that much). You don't really rely on your fighter for search and spot checks, but you would expect the rogue to be good at these skills. So a fighter taking this enhances his role with little detriment, while a rogue hurts his ability to do his job (though likely even a rogue would think this a worthwhile trade-off in this particular case).Of course, a little background on my PC should help. He's a total woosy in melee combat. Thus, he's much more comfortable with a bow. BTW, he's also a rogue. The fact is that I designed this flaw before I ever saw the variant rules on flaws. So, I was quite happy to see that rules on flaws were being created. It seemed to be a fair trade, because of who he is, IMO. Granted, I am no game designer.