Loner and Forlorn flaws

[Craig Shannon]

Just read Dragon 333 page 94 Forlorn (Flaw). This would appear to be the same as the Loner (Flaw) Dragon 227 page 93, except Loner is more flexible (in more classes could take it) and gives more information and detail on gaining other potential familiars or companions at a later point from other classes i.e you don't, ever.

There is also the mild potential for abuse, with a level 1 wizard taking both Loner and Forlorn to get two feats (for what is fundamentally the same flaw) utilising the argument that he might wish to become a druid later and has to make the decision now about whether he wishes to lose his potential future animal companion. The true could be the same for a wizard who eventually becomes a ranger.

The answer is simple really, bin the Forlorn (Flaw) and stick with the more versatile Loner (Flaw). Odd thing is these feats only appeared 6 issues apart, but the more flexible one (in my opinion) appeared first.

[RainOfSteel]

Craig Shannon wrote:

There is also the mild potential for abuse, with a level 1 wizard taking both Loner and Forlorn to get two feats (for what is fundamentally the same flaw) utilising the argument that he might wish to become a druid later and has to make the decision now about whether he wishes to lose his potential future animal companion. The true could be the same for a wizard who eventually becomes a ranger.

If it isn't a flaw or disadvantage has no drawback, it isn't worth any benefit to the PC. Every GM has the right to reject cheesy duplicate Flaws selected during PC-gen, or better yet, to reject any Flaws that don't hurt the PC (or don't hurt them very much, for whatever reason).

Example: In my latest Shadowrun 3rd Edition game, for which we just did character creation, I am playing a Mage. In the Shadowrun Companion rulebook, there is a nifty Mental Flaw that's worth several points. It's a flaw causing penalities for jacking into the Matrix directly. As a Mage, I'm not expected to do any direct Matrix interation, so taking this high-value Flaw would not take anything away from my character, even though the Flaw didn't say that only Deckers could take it (it wasn't even a Matrix Flaw, it was a Mental Flaw; and other Matrix Flaws from that section specifically restricted themselves to Deckers, but the Mental Flaw did have that specific restriction).

Of course, being the cheesy munchkin that I am, I smiled and pointed this little loophole out to my GM, and she immediately said, "No." And she was right to do so.

[Craig Shannon]

True, however my main point was how these fundamentally identical flaws ended up in the same magazine just six months apart, particularly as the more detailed one was published first. Naughty Paizo, you owe us another cool arcane flaw now by my reckoning :)

[Hal Maclean]

Craig Shannon wrote:

True, however my main point was how these fundamentally identical flaws ended up in the same magazine just six months apart, particularly as the more detailed one was published first. Naughty Paizo, you owe us another cool arcane flaw now by my reckoning :)

I haven't seen the issue yet so I can't comment on the problem with that particular flaw. However, unless this has already appeared elsewhere here's a flaw that just occurred to me (once again, assuming I'm not inadvertently swiping it from someone else :) )

OVERSPECIALIZED (Flaw)

Your intense focus upon one particular form of magic, and disdain for all "lesser" schools sometimes trigers a backlash when you use magic foreign to your school.

PREREQUISITE: specialist

EFFECT: Whenever you cast a spell that does not belong to your school make a Fort save (DC=10+level of spell) to avoid suffering 2 damage/level of the spell.

You could tweak this in a number of ways, including dealing nonlethal damage or maybe work in fatigue instead of damage.

For another interesting variant the wizard could instead deal the damage to a willing nearby subject upon a failed save. If you add in the proviso that the wizard must form a magical connection with this subject (i.e. only one person at a time), and if the subject isn't nearby she can't cast the spell at all, you could create a magic system similar to the one found in Guy Gavriel Kay's "Fionavar Tapestry".

[Chris Shadowens]

Craig Shannon wrote:

Just read Dragon 333 page 94 Forlorn (Flaw). This would appear to be the same as the Loner (Flaw) Dragon 227 page 93, except Loner is more flexible (in more classes could take it) and gives more information and detail on gaining other potential familiars or companions at a later point from other classes i.e you don't, ever.

I remember looking at the Loner flaw when I was rolling up my current goblin battle sorcerer. I thought it'd be a cheap, easy way to grab a free feat since I rarely ever play spellcasters and when I have I don't think I ever picked a familiar for them. Instead, I went for flaws that would fit in with the backstory I'd written up (picking Phantom Sparks & Hot-Blooded, fitting in with his supposed fire elemental bloodline.)

I suppose it'd depend on the DM but I think I'd have to hear a good reason as to why the PC doesn't want a familiar/animal companion so badly that he'd take a flaw for it instead of just not having/casting the spell.

- Chris Shadowens

[The Jade]

Hal Maclean wrote:

I haven't seen the issue yet so I can't comment on the problem with that particular flaw. However, unless this has already appeared elsewhere here's a flaw that just occurred to me (once again, assuming I'm not inadvertently swiping it from someone else :) )

OVERSPECIALIZED (Flaw)

Your intense focus upon one particular form of magic, and disdain for all "lesser" schools sometimes trigers a backlash when you use magic foreign to your school.

PREREQUISITE: specialist

EFFECT: Whenever you cast a spell that does not belong to your school make a Fort save (DC=10+level of spell) to avoid suffering 2 damage/level of the spell.

You could tweak this in a number of ways, including dealing nonlethal damage or maybe work in fatigue instead of damage.

For another interesting variant the wizard could instead deal the damage to a willing nearby subject upon a failed save. If you add in the proviso that the wizard must form a magical connection with this subject (i.e. only one person at a time), and if the subject isn't nearby she can't cast the spell at all, you could create a magic system similar to the one found in Guy Gavriel Kay's "Fionavar Tapestry".

I like that a lot, Hal. I prefer your nonlethal damage or fatigue version.