|
What are your opinions on them? I've been thinking about adding them to my upcoming campaign because my players are always complaining about how slow the feat progression is, and I wanted to remedy that. What have been your experiences with them. Have they impacted your game positively or negatively?
What are your opinions on them? I've been thinking about adding them to my upcoming campaign because my players are always complaining about how slow the feat progression is, and I wanted to remedy that. What have been your experiences with them. Have they impacted your game positively or negatively?
Traits are good!
I hope Prpg will includes them in the form of cultural trait : Chelaxian's trait, Mierani elves traits, Sanos' gnommes traits, Varisian traits... They allow customization without reworking the basic feat/class/level rules.
What are your opinions on them? I've been thinking about adding them to my upcoming campaign because my players are always complaining about how slow the feat progression is, and I wanted to remedy that. What have been your experiences with them. Have they impacted your game positively or negatively?
My opinion on flaws (as a GM): I'd rather just give an extra feat to everyone for free. In my experience you get a lot of people choosing the same few flaws, like "Murky-Eyed" (or "Noncombatant" for wizards), and you end up with a cataract clinic instead of an adventuring party.
I like traits, though; they're pretty harmless.
|
|
I agree with that, as I can see everyone taking "murky-eyed". If they did, I would probably put them in a lot of dark places, or make a lot of people carry smokesticks, sorcerers with fog, ect. to show them that it wasn't a flaw that they would never regret taking.
I think I might just give them an extra feat, like you suggested, and let them take traits. Then everybody's happy.
My group and I personally love flaws and traits. As you said, flaws are a good way to help get more feats, and they're a fun roleplaying tool. I even gathered all of the official flaws (from UA and several dragon issues), and typed them up into a flaw document, which is now an extremely valuable tool for all our campaigns.
While it's true that fairly meaningless flaws can be chosen (murky-eyed is a common selection), I've never found that it unbalances the game, although others' experiences may be different.
|
|
My group and I personally love flaws and traits. As you said, flaws are a good way to help get more feats, and they're a fun roleplaying tool. I even gathered all of the official flaws (from UA and several dragon issues), and typed them up into a flaw document, which is now an extremely valuable tool for all our campaigns.
While it's true that fairly meaningless flaws can be chosen (murky-eyed is a common selection), I've never found that it unbalances the game, although others' experiences may be different.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to that document, or could send it to me would you?
|
I think I might just give them an extra feat, like you suggested, and let them take traits. Then everybody's happy.
Completely agree. There are not enough variants, and we get the same old ones picked every campaign. Beginning with Pathfinder RPG the feat-gaining goes up so I'll nix this come that time.
-DM Jeff
|
I like traits as written. I think they bring an extra-dimension the roleplay experience. Even munchkins will tend roleplay their traits more simply because its there, and that is a good thing regardless of its in-game benefits.
Flaws are a bit wonky. Basically you are right: people choose to minimize the flaw and maximize their feat choice.
I've taken a different approach in flaws. The player must determine a flaw and a feat option that can be explained in some causal link via a backstory. For example:
At a young age Colin was beaten by Gaedren Lamm, his erstwhile protector, and left for dead in a pile of garbage. He was discovered and brought to the Priests of Pharasma for proper burial but they discovered his young life held on by a tenuous thread. They are able to bring him back from the brink of death, by the bones of his left ankle were unable to heal, leaving him with a pronounced limp that made it difficult for him to walk (-10 to speed). Colin studied with the priests, becoming a priest of Pharasma himself in time. His extended training from such a young age, and given his limited ability to pursue more active pursuits, Colin spent much of his training focused on the intricacies of prayer (Colin gets the Skill Focu: Spellcraft feat free and always treats spellcraft as a class skill).
Granted, its not hard to make a tenuous connection with less harmful flaws and more beneficial feats, but such a write-up certainly creates an in-born tension in the character that can be used for roleplaying: Does Colin resent his limp and seek to use his spells to minimize its effects? Or has Colin come to terms with it, recognizing that without it, his superb spellcraft may not have developed?
Such armed, a 1st Cleric of Pharasma is transformed into a vibrant character.
|
I've taken a different approach in flaws. The player must determine a flaw and a feat option that can be explained in some causal link via a backstory. For example:
*snip*
Thats how I do things. Generally speaking, I am very lenient in what I will allow, as long as there is a reason for it in your back story. I've even allowed minor magical items if it was a particularly difficult module (had one that the PCs all got magical items that fit their back story, but not their character choice, and they all had to sit in a circle and pass their item one to the right til they got something they could use.) any flaw and feat taken from that flaw must be discussed in the backstory. Depending on which group we're playing with, they might have to be related too (IE how you compensate for loosing one sense by becoming more sensitive to the other senses)..
I like traits as written. I think they bring an extra-dimension the roleplay experience. Even munchkins will tend roleplay their traits more simply because its there, and that is a good thing regardless of its in-game benefits.
Flaws are a bit wonky. Basically you are right: people choose to minimize the flaw and maximize their feat choice.
I've taken a different approach in flaws. The player must determine a flaw and a feat option that can be explained in some causal link via a backstory. For example: <Colin's story snipped>
That's a great example of an interesting flaw. But I'd personally rather see the interesting bits of a character's expressed through (relatively harmless) traits than (more severe) flaws. If every character is handicapped in some way, it starts to seem a bit silly to me (as a matter of personal taste, not as a matter of game balance). It reminds me of the Champions games I'd play as a kid where every hero was deaf, or paranoid, or had no legs so that the player could scrounge up some extra points to build with.
I find Traits and Flaws to mix role-playing with mechanics and greatly enhance the overall experience, and have been using them since I first found out about them.
I'll admit that I've used Murky-Eyed a time or two, but I actually like to vary which Flaws I take.
My most recent PC has both the Slow Trait and the Slow Flaw. Even with his starting speed of 40' (Nezumi), his Traits and Flaws when combined with his crazy heavy armor (Heavy plate) drop down him to a speed of 5'.
-Kurocyn
We use both traits and Flaws at out table. Mostly people use the Flaws though for the bonus feats.
Like DM Jeff, I'll be nixing Flaws as an option when we Go 3.P, the feat increase is more than enough to compensate. However, traits will still be allowed.
I really don't like the flaws - as has been said, everyone takes murky-eyed, and I have to wonder why so many partially sighted people become adventurers...
I use flaws. Anyway I and my players know that if people shamelessly exploit some rule (like everyone picking the same flaw with little effect), DM is morally permitted to punish them for being naughty.
Taking the "no familiar" flaw is still pretty popular for wizards but that's ok.
Taking the "no familiar" flaw is still pretty popular for wizards but that's ok.
For the record, I have no problem with swapping out a class feature for something else of similar value; I don't use flaws to do it, though.
Taking the "no familiar" flaw is still pretty popular for wizards but that's ok.
I don't use flaws but this I allow.
ive used flaws as a player before with some pretty good role playing i picked two, one where person not of the same faith as me took less benefit from the healing i gave as a cleric such as just base dice only no pluses for other feats or class levels... the other was i used the deity's weapon and no other to pick up another feat it was kinda nice but the party went on to later not enjoy my reduced healing but it allowed the charachter to have some history and reasoning behind it and reinforced the fact that most gods wont just give out powerful healing to non believers, and the weapon choice showed his faith in his deity and belief in the power of such it was a fun pc with some interesting relationships....
I like traits and flaws. GURPS has a host of them that can be converted over. :P
I love merits and flaws, but I have yet to see them used properly in any game system. I don't think they would lend themselves well to D&D, but I'd be interested in anything anyone came up with.
|
|
That's a great example of an interesting flaw. But I'd personally rather see the interesting bits of a character's expressed through (relatively harmless) traits than (more severe) flaws. If every character is handicapped in some way...
I chose an extreme example to better illustrate my point. The point, of course, was there had to be a causal link between the two. In my example the character isn't just flawed (crippled), his disability has become a point of strength (Extra feat). It cxould easily be done with less severe flaws and more "uber" feats.
Its still a player choice, but by enforcing a backstory and a causal link, it forces the player to sit down, think, and write something interesting. For the ROLEplayers out there this is like candy. For the munchkins though, I've found they often decide the task is either a) too onerous and forego the "bonus feat" (their MO) or b) Rise to the challenge and suprise themselves in how rich their "munchkin" character can truly be.
What are your opinions on them? I've been thinking about adding them to my upcoming campaign because my players are always complaining about how slow the feat progression is, and I wanted to remedy that. What have been your experiences with them. Have they impacted your game positively or negatively?
We've used them, but the only players of mine to take traits or flaws are those looking to get more than the rules provide.
Why not just give them a free feat? That's arguably what they're asking for.
|
|
Point based flaws are the way to go...ala Vampire...
I do like the Hubris/flaws from 7th sea, the flaws from Unearthed arcana, just plain SUCK!
Traits RULE!
oh and of course the AEG and PEG flaws/merits are good too,
I have thought about making a point system for D&D as well, with traits in the game now, it would be a little bit easier...
for example:
trait: 1 pt merit
quirk: 1 pt flaws
minor feat (either skill focuse type or lame pre-reqs) 2pt
minor flaws : 2 pts
normal feat: 3 pts
some of the UA flaws 3pts
excellent feats(y'know the ones you see all the time...): 4 pts
the more harsh UA flaws
I enjoy flaws for their ability to show some other character traits than just the best of the PC. The few games that I've been allowed to use flaws in I've used the following.
Monk/Hexblade/Kensai -- two flaws (inattentive, slow rereaction)
Flavored Soul/ Mystic Wanderer / Heartwarden -- Shakey, non combatant
Scout / Dervish / Ranger -- 1 flaws (Sick, homebrew flaw, after heavy excursion, had to make a fortitude save based on both my level and the amount of excursion or be sickened, or dropped prone coughing up blood) and the quick trait.
I think the flaws work alright as long as the DM has time to look over them, and the player is willing to remember to note when they come up.
|
|
I've been working on a flaw/trait for a pregen character in Tegara.
Kleptomaniac: Your character has a nigh uncontrolable urge to steal. 3 random times per day(or session), you must make a Will save. Should you fail, you must steal a random object from your surroundings or from someone near you. You do not always realize you have stolen anything.
Hero stresses the point that a Disadvantage (Flaw) that is not a disadvantage is not worth any points. If you do not believe a flaw is going to be a factor in your game, disallow it.
Hero also has some excellent guidelines for building Disadvantages which I believe could be used to build Flaws. You would just need to determine a baseline of 1 Flaw is roughly the equivalent of X pts Disadvantage.
|
|
I've been working on a flaw/trait for a pregen character in Tegara.
Kleptomaniac: Your character has a nigh uncontrolable urge to steal. 3 random times per day(or session), you must make a Will save. Should you fail, you must steal a random object from your surroundings or from someone near you. You do not always realize you have stolen anything.
That's how the flaws in 7th sea work, except instead of 3/day, it can be activated by the GM or another player.
|
|
That's how the flaws in 7th sea work, except instead of 3/day, it can be activated by the GM or another player.I've been working on a flaw/trait for a pregen character in Tegara.
Kleptomaniac: Your character has a nigh uncontrolable urge to steal. 3 random times per day(or session), you must make a Will save. Should you fail, you must steal a random object from your surroundings or from someone near you. You do not always realize you have stolen anything.
Activation by the GM is the intent, I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. I thought it was by stating 3 random times per day.
The only kind of flaw I can think of which can be activated by another player however is a phobia of some sort(PC tosses a snake at another PC who is afraid of snakes).
Point based flaws are the way to go...ala Vampire...
I do like the Hubris/flaws from 7th sea, the flaws from Unearthed arcana, just plain SUCK!
Traits RULE!
oh and of course the AEG and PEG flaws/merits are good too,
I have thought about making a point system for D&D as well, with traits in the game now, it would be a little bit easier...
for example:trait: 1 pt merit
quirk: 1 pt flaws
minor feat (either skill focuse type or lame pre-reqs) 2pt
minor flaws : 2 pts
normal feat: 3 pts
some of the UA flaws 3pts
excellent feats(y'know the ones you see all the time...): 4 pts
the more harsh UA flaws
Check out The Book of Distinctions and Drawbacks. I've used it for years. There's a d20 Modern version as well.
|
|
Check out The Book of Distinctions and Drawbacks. I've used it for years. There's a d20 Modern version as well.Point based flaws are the way to go...ala Vampire...
I do like the Hubris/flaws from 7th sea, the flaws from Unearthed arcana, just plain SUCK!
Traits RULE!
oh and of course the AEG and PEG flaws/merits are good too,
I have thought about making a point system for D&D as well, with traits in the game now, it would be a little bit easier...
for example:trait: 1 pt merit
quirk: 1 pt flaws
minor feat (either skill focuse type or lame pre-reqs) 2pt
minor flaws : 2 pts
normal feat: 3 pts
some of the UA flaws 3pts
excellent feats(y'know the ones you see all the time...): 4 pts
the more harsh UA flaws
That is a pretty tempting PDF, from the preview, it looks like a great system.
That is a pretty tempting PDF, from the preview, it looks like a great system.
It's definitely a solid buy. The system is modular enough to use only pieces, or you can use the whole thing without blowing up your game (assuming you abide by the restrictions suggested in the intro). The straight mechanical flaws are separated from the more RP-intensive flaws so DM's that want more easily enforced penalties. Racials and class flaws are covered. There are even curses and progressive taints (turn into an aquatic horror over time!). Outside the flaw sections, there's an option for "seasoning" characters based on age categories.
I only have one caution--Cryptosnark Games is no longer in business but the last I checked their web site was still up and it would still take your money for products but they'd never deliver. Order from RPG Now or DriveThru and you're good to go.
It's definitely a solid buy.
That does sound useful. I am always looking for more ideas for Disadvantages.
|
|
So here's how I'm rolling this supplement into Pathfinder Point buy.
Basically you do like other games with a flaw/advantage system, you buy your attributes, flaws/advantages at the same time.
Advantages = cost
Traits = 1point
Add a class skill = 1point
Add a skill rank = 1 point
Add a feat=3 points
Flaws = added points.
Purchase attributes according to Point Buy.
20 max flaw points
Age Flaw is a bit of a conundrum, so I came up with this...
the Bonuses are added to the attributes BEFORE buying increases.
Penalties are applied AFTER everything is said and done.
(This will prevent every wizard, sorcerer and bard being venerable.)
I threw out the 3points=2 attribute points. And the 8 flaw points for an ECL increase.
|
|
Another option for players who want more feats is to allow trading "feat equivalent" racial/class features for feats such as in my game my wife asked if she could trade the elven longsword proficiancy for elf dillitante (+1 bonus to untrained skill checks/use all skills untrained). This made sense to me as I think elves would pick up a host of minor training in a broad spectrum of feilds in their long lives. Another example is a player who traded his half elfs bonus' to diplomacy and gather info for a feat, in his case track for his scout. Ofcourse I also changed the skill points so the min for a class is 4/lvl (exept ftrs whos training is reflected in mad feats) to reflect that classes should have some training in other things besides killing stuff. I mean does it make sense that a cleric or wizard has so few skills despite a supposed formal education? not to me.
We use flaws at most of our games.
FYI We don't see murky eye flaw all that often.
I usually take shacky or non combatant depending on if I want to do melee or ranged.
Over all we like the system at our games and find it to be interesting to say the least.
|
|
So here's how I'm rolling this supplement into Pathfinder Point buy.
Basically you do like other games with a flaw/advantage system, you buy your attributes, flaws/advantages at the same time.
Advantages = cost
Traits = 1point
Add a class skill = 1point
Add a skill rank = 1 point
Add a feat=3 points
Flaws = added points.Purchase attributes according to Point Buy.
20 max flaw points
Age Flaw is a bit of a conundrum, so I came up with this...
the Bonuses are added to the attributes BEFORE buying increases.
Penalties are applied AFTER everything is said and done.
(This will prevent every wizard, sorcerer and bard being venerable.)
I threw out the 3points=2 attribute points. And the 8 flaw points for an ECL increase.
Using this system with the above changes...
I mean does it make sense that a cleric or wizard has so few skills despite a supposed formal education?
That is a good point. I understand they were trying to balance things and Rogues are suppose to be the skill mongers. I wonder if they should have given other classes additional skill ranks with the caveat that those additional ranks could only be spent on a more restricted list of skills. Clerics and Wizards could use them on knowledge type skills. Fighters could use them on physical skills.
I mean does it make sense that a cleric or wizard has so few skills despite a supposed formal education?That is a good point. I understand they were trying to balance things and Rogues are suppose to be the skill mongers. I wonder if they should have given other classes additional skill ranks with the caveat that those additional ranks could only be spent on a more restricted list of skills. Clerics and Wizards could use them on knowledge type skills. Fighters could use them on physical skills.
Sounds like rifts to me, but maybe not a bad idea.
I think in general, even with the pathfinder skill reductions, they should all have the amount of skill points increased by +2 (+8 at level 1 for 3.5)
I mean does it make sense that a cleric or wizard has so few skills despite a supposed formal education? not to me.
Presumably they learn an enormous number of things in their formal education...that all fall under the same few categories (K: Arcana, K: Religion and Spellcraft).
Flaws are good, and minimizing them is part of the roleplaying experience. Do you think someone who was Frail would think being a front-line melee fighter would be a good choice? Or is it better to be a wizard in the back of the party, if you're smart enough to pull it off?
Traits are good, though the game I'm in now, the DM considered them too good, so told me to take a Flaw to balance the choice of two Traits.
With the game I'm running, I've let all my players go through the traits lists and take whatever two they wanted, though I red-lined "Finding Halleen", because Halleen doesn't exist in my world, so characters are going to have some trouble finding her. Ditto with the other traits tied directly to people running the adventure path but not that useful outside of it.
|
|
I'm a big fan of Flaws too. Glad to see I'm not the only one who put together his own compilation pdf, though. 8^)
I've been considering doing a revamp of the Flaws system for PRPG. Probably won't change the fundamentals, and most of the flaws themselves will probably only need minor adjustments, but I'm considering rewriting some, if not most, of them to make them 1) a little more interesting, and 2) a bit better balanced.
So, what would people want to see in a revamped-for-Pathfinder Flaws system? What do you think needs to be changed? What should at all costs NOT be changed? What do you like about Flaws? What do you dislike about them? (And, as always, please keep it civil and constructive.)
|
|
I'm a big fan of Flaws too. Glad to see I'm not the only one who put together his own compilation pdf, though. 8^)
I've been considering doing a revamp of the Flaws system for PRPG. Probably won't change the fundamentals, and most of the flaws themselves will probably only need minor adjustments, but I'm considering rewriting some, if not most, of them to make them 1) a little more interesting, and 2) a bit better balanced.
So, what would people want to see in a revamped-for-Pathfinder Flaws system? What do you think needs to be changed? What should at all costs NOT be changed? What do you like about Flaws? What do you dislike about them? (And, as always, please keep it civil and constructive.)
I really like that system I'm using, but I have had to do a major revamp, and as I said I rolled it into the point buy system.
We use flaws at most of our games.
FYI We don't see murky eye flaw all that often.
I usually take shacky or non combatant depending on if I want to do melee or ranged.
Over all we like the system at our games and find it to be interesting to say the least.
I completely agree. I like to use non-combatant/shaky in conjunction with melee/ranged types. It just makes sense. If an archer spends all their time training with their bow, then their hand-to-hand abilities are going to suffer, and vice-versa. DMs can also freely use this flaw against you, by using fast-moving melee types against the archers, and using archer types against your melee type. Also, the feat gained from one of these flaws makes sense, since you focused more effort on your respective style and not on balancing melee and ranged like a normal fighter type does.
I have a lot of fun role playing flaws. I try to take ones that feel appropriate, not necessarily optimal. If I make a Knight, with a lot of CON, wearing the heaviest, bulkiest armor he can afford, then I choose the -3 Reflex Save flaw. Think about it; if a guy is practically a tank, he's not going to be dodging and ducking out of the way, he's gonna hunch his shoulders and absorb what he can. Likewise for lithe, agile characters, I usually take the -3 Fortitude Save flaw for them. If I do end up taking the Murky-eyed flaw, then I play it up when the opportunity arises:
Me: "Tarnation! I can't make out nothin in all this fog!" *wanders random direction*
Most common flaws I've seen:
Shaky, Non Combatant, Vulnerable, Fragile, Non Attentive (sucks when your rogue takes this!), Slow Reactive
Those have been the most common published flaws in the games I've played in... and in general in that order.
So far I haven't seen a player take a flaw for his character that is doesn't affect the character in a significant way.
Now this could be because the local DM's are known for making sure if you take a flaw it comes up if you don't make sure it does... and generally the DM's are harsher about it if they have to do it. So the players tend to make sure the flaw is significant to the character in some way before taking it (like a wizard having the vulnerable, or Fragile flaws... takes a weak point and makes it weaker, or the rogue mentioned above with Non attentive).
So far I haven't seen a player take a flaw for his character that is doesn't affect the character in a significant way.
You've never seen a wizard take Non-combatant? We must play in different groups.
I'll just repeat my remark from above: I'd rather give our free feats than have my players choosing from the same list of three or four most popular (usually the least debilitating) flaws.
So far I haven't seen a player take a flaw for his character that is doesn't affect the character in a significant way.You've never seen a wizard take Non-combatant? We must play in different groups.
I'll just repeat my remark from above: I'd rather give our free feats than have my players choosing from the same list of three or four most popular (usually the least debilitating) flaws.
Not a wizard that doesn't expect to be in melee combat some. Like I said, if the player takes it, the situation tends to happen more...