Core Principles: Your extra weakness /= extra power.

[RobbyPants]

I remember trying to explain this to someone back at the WotC forums a while back, but just in terms of +2 X not being balanced out by -2 Y. That -2 Y doesn't weaken the character. It just limits the scope of playable class options.

[Just another user]

I like systems where the flaws give you something only when they are actually flaw, the best example I can think of is FATE. In FATe you technically don't have flaws, you have Traits and while you can have traits that are fully positive or negative it is more interesting to have some that can be used both against and in favor of the character. The great thing is that when you use a trait to your advantage you must pay a FATE point, when the GM (or the player) use a trait against the player he gain a FATE point. So if you have a "flaw" and it never impact the game you simply gain nothing, OTOH if a flaw enter the game a lot (and actually limit you) you'd gain a lot of FATE points to compensate. It is the only game I can think of where you could have only negative traits and still have a playable character.

FATE is the system used for Spirit of the century and the Dresden Files RPG oyu can find the rules online (http://www.faterpg.com/) if you are interested

[Roy]

Truly.

That is so disgusting on so many levels I felt a momentary impulse to punch a wall.

Oh, boy, I love it when people think a powerful character will rape a game, and people are only kept from devolving into munchkins by being forced to play characters who aren't 'ungodly powerful!'

Jesus. Why are the people who freak about "ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying" the ones who freak over mechanics and make the most repressive and idiotic houserules?

Because they are the Creationists of D&D. Alternately, because they are the worst kind of powergamer. Namely, the one too stupid and lazy to learn how to actually powergame, so instead they have to make up bullshit about what is and is not powerful, and try and drag everyone down to the gimp level.

I remember trying to explain this to someone back at the WotC forums a while back, but just in terms of +2 X not being balanced out by -2 Y. That -2 Y doesn't weaken the character. It just limits the scope of playable class options.

Depends on what the -2 is to.

Something like -2 Str, +2 Int just means 'ideal wizard race'.

Whereas something like -2 Con, +2 anything means 'ideal fail race'.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I wonder when people will start realizing that getting extra points out of flaws is and was a bad idea.

Probably never, because people are still pushing subjective horseshit fake ideas like 'only let players have flaws if it hurts them in some way!'

[Blicero]

I really do think of it as Die Schwarze Augen, because eyes normally come in pairs.

Except that then wouldn't it be "Die Schwarzen Augen, because Augen as a plural noun with a definite article in front of it would require the appropriate ending?

As a german native, I hereby declare Blicero correct on the plural form.
I'm also starting to wonder whats so difficult about memorizing "Das Schwarze Auge" but it may be that you are mocking the game, which would be justified.

Fuck yes, this is what three years of Deutsch in high school gives you-the ability to be better than some people on Teh Interwebz!

[hogarth]

I wonder when people will start realizing that getting extra points out of flaws is and was a bad idea.

Probably never, because people are still pushing subjective horseshit fake ideas like 'only let players have flaws if it hurts them in some way!'

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a perfectly workable way of incorporating flaws -- you give a bonus whenever the flaw comes into play, rather than giving a bonus at character creation. Then it's not always in the PC's best interest to avoid any situation where the flaw would take effect.

[Mask_De_H]

I remember trying to explain this to someone back at the WotC forums a while back, but just in terms of +2 X not being balanced out by -2 Y. That -2 Y doesn't weaken the character. It just limits the scope of playable class options.

Depends on what the -2 is to.

Something like -2 Str, +2 Int just means 'ideal wizard race'.

Whereas something like -2 Con, +2 anything means 'ideal fail race'.

Not if there's a sweet enough bonus behind them. Thanks to the bow proficiency, Elves are the Cleric Archer master race, -2 Con and all.

[Leress]

Umm, no you don't take plain elf that's stupid you take one of the better flavors of elf.

[Lago PARANOIA]

As was mentioned earlier in the thread, there's a perfectly workable way of incorporating flaws -- you give a bonus whenever the flaw comes into play, rather than giving a bonus at character creation. Then it's not always in the PC's best interest to avoid any situation where the flaw would take effect.

I saw that and the idea is still stupid. Instead of people manipulating things so that the negative situation comes up, they'll try to manipulate things so that the bonus comes up.

For example, someone has the flaw of 'night blindness' where they suffer a 20% penalty to attack rolls in the dark. But then their flaw-benefit of 'extra toughness' pops up during these situations. This gives a tank-type character an incentive to blindfold themselves when they have a 'You shall not pass!' situation and rely on trip and grapple attacks.

Their dumb solution does not solve the basic problem of flaws asymmetrically providing bonuses when the person manipulates the situation to their advantage. It'll likely be harder since TTRPGs make it easier for PCs to avoid disadvantageous situations than it is for them to create advantageous situations (I blame Gygax) but it's still unfair.


If you fuckers want flaws so much, why not make them mandatory? I can't think of a reason why a named character shouldn't have flaws of some sort unless they're really bland or a Mary Sue.

[Centurion13]

Remind me to never, ever fucking play with you...

I fucking hate this kind of Gygaxian bullshit. Some of us want to be ungodly kickass for 20 levels? what's so wrong with that?

Or at least never to play D&D with me. It's the only game I do that in.

As to what's wrong with being ungodly kickass the entire game? It's boring. There's no sense of risk. Any work I go through to set up a story is essentially boiled down to cardboard cutouts the players crop through. If I'm running a straight dungeon crawl, that's fine. If I'm trying to run a story, it gets annoying.

Besides, why roll dice at that point? I mean, rolling dice is bullshit and it introduces an element of randomness that could gimp a character. If I want to be beyond the realm of risk, why not just play "I win"? Why not just write a story where your character is really fucking badass and read it to us?

I'm not out to kill the PCs, I don't even feel like I'm opposing them. If I *was* out to get the players, then they'd need super high stats to compensate.

As to why I introduced the rule, I got really, really sick of having players show up with 18, 18, 17, 15, 14, 14 as their stats. If I make them gen characters in front of me, that takes all night because of decision paralysis.

The end result of the house rule actually eliminated the need for it. I saw characters who would have stats that weren't all 14+. Which was my major sticking point. People started playing characters that had variable abilities. It made for more interesting games.

+1

That matches the experiences I have had over the past thirty years.

[hogarth]

For example, someone has the flaw of 'night blindness' where they suffer a 20% penalty to attack rolls in the dark. But then their flaw-benefit of 'extra toughness' pops up during these situations. This gives a tank-type character an incentive to blindfold themselves when they have a 'You shall not pass!' situation and rely on trip and grapple attacks.

Uh...what? Who was suggesting something like this?

I think the typical example is like Complications in Mutants & Masterminds. For example, if your character's Complication is "fear of heights", then you earn a hero point every time your character suffers a significant setback because of his fear.

Of course, Mutants & Masterminds has the more typical kind of flaws that K is referring to in his original post, which suffer from the problems he mentioned above (you just work around the flaw and therefore end up getting something for nothing).

[Kaelik]

Flatline, you still haven't explained why "I rolled 18/18/18/18/18/8, no honestly." is a better system than PB which is actually fair instead of rewarding liars.

[RandomCasualty2]

Flatline, you still haven't explained why "I rolled 18/18/18/18/18/8, no honestly." is a better system than PB which is actually fair instead of rewarding liars.

not only is it more fair, it's also less time consuming, instead of the "Roll 5000 times until you get a set of rolls you like" method.

[Nachtigallerator]

Fuck yes, this is what three years of Deutsch in high school gives you-the ability to be better than some people on Teh Interwebz!

Herzlichen Glückwunsch

I furiously oppose stat rolling. Baldurs Gate II had me do it, and it was retarded to roll n times so I could get decent Intelligence and Wisdom scores on my wizards. Granted, I was out for Wish-abuse, but Point-Buy removes the dumb random element and makes everyone suffer to the same degree for over- and underspecialization respectively.
It's a widespread misconception that characters become better if you make them more random, which seems to be the only point of rolling stats. Some people might find it nice to piece together some traits at random and make a character out of it, but I would find it frustrating not to know from the beginning what I can design my character to be good at.

Of course a character needs weaknesses to not develop into something boring and depressing, but "low proficiency in X" rarely equals a flaw. A penguin is not proficient at flying, and you wouldn't call that a flaw despite the penguin technically being a bird. It all depends on what you need to be able to do in the given situation.
A wizard with "low proficiency in carrying stuff around" is usually about as flawed as a penguin in the antarctic - not at all flawed.² A point-buy system used in his creation means he had to set priorities somewhere, and if you want to make his low proficiency at carrying stuff around a flaw, introduce a scenario where he has to. Similarily, if the barbarians shotcomings when it comes to Lore rolls are to be shown, introduce a scenario where a successful roll is beneficial.

If you want to have flaws, make them count.

² Naturally, he was lucky not to have the DM set his intelligence to 9, because that would make him a penguin who can't swim.

With best reguards,
Nachtigallerator.

[Parthenon]

Can your weakness == extra power in single player games, for example in computer RPGs (Morrowind etc) or games where there is only one PC with no DMPCs?

Because in the one player TTRPG the DM can direct the plot much more and so make situations where the flaw comes up happen more often, and in CRPGs the players control is limited so that the flaws almost always come into effect. So say the PC who decided on vertigo can try to go underground to avoid their flaw but might find a huge cavernous region with deep drops and holes to be scared of. (Yes this example seems dickish but so is going underground to avoid vertigo)

In another example in Morrowind the sign of the... Atronach? where you don't get Magicka back from sleeping, in return for extra Magicka capacity and spell absorption is going to dramatically affect how you play the game, especially in the early stages. Yes, the player can decide to have a permanent summon ancestor spirit on a ring and let it cast spells at you for hours to recharge your magicka, but for the sane player it will force you to either limit your use of magic or train alchemy (oh noes, you are forced to take the most game breaking skill in the game!).

[RandomCasualty2]

Weaknesses can matter in single player or competitive play. Basically if you suck at lockpicking, then you're going to suck at lockpicking and that's a drawback because you have no way of picking locks.

In D&D that isn't the case because it's a game of specialists. You don't care if your wizard is really bad at finding traps because that's not his job and the rogue does it anyway. In a game of specialists, you basically cannot have weaknesses, unless the weakness is to something everyone has to do.

If it's some task that just gets handed off to the team, then honestly it's not even a flaw if you can't do it, and just becomes the "take a penalty to the action I wasn't gonna take anyway."

[Roy]

I remember trying to explain this to someone back at the WotC forums a while back, but just in terms of +2 X not being balanced out by -2 Y. That -2 Y doesn't weaken the character. It just limits the scope of playable class options.

Depends on what the -2 is to.

Something like -2 Str, +2 Int just means 'ideal wizard race'.

Whereas something like -2 Con, +2 anything means 'ideal fail race'.

Not if there's a sweet enough bonus behind them. Thanks to the bow proficiency, Elves are the Cleric Archer master race, -2 Con and all.

1: Cleric Archers are not a good build. They're just good at mocking Arcane Archers. Which really doesn't mean much, as they do a fine job of mocking themselves.

2: Since there are over 9,000 elf sub races, at least one of em will not have a -2 Con. Which still means the - Con elves are made of fail.

[Username17]

-Con Races are just an incentive to become a Necropolitan or Reincarnate or otherwise take a muligan on your Con score. It doesn't make much difference at low levels and by high levels you can either zero out your Con Score or replace your physical mods with something else.

So as a Sun Elf, you can take a Con Penalty for an Int Bonus. And then you can reincarnate into a Dwarf or some thing around 7th level when the Con Penalty starts to matter and then cash it out. The hit points immediately stack up as if you'd never had a con penalty, and you keep the Int because Reincarnation doesn't change your mental stats. Or you can jump into Necropolitan at 3rd level and swap your d4s for d12s with no Con modifier - which is a whole lot like having an 18 Constitution. Which will only start to feel like a bad deal around level 12 or so when the game is ending anyway.

-Con Races totally justify themselves in their own weird niche.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

1: Cleric Archers are not a good build. They're just good at mocking Arcane Archers. Which really doesn't mean much, as they do a fine job of mocking themselves.

Don't be stupid Roy. Cleric Archers are the best 3.5 Clerics that exist.

You literally can't make a 3.5 Cleric that is better than a Cleric Archer.

And since these are Clerics, that's saying something.

[Roy]

1: Cleric Archers are not a good build. They're just good at mocking Arcane Archers. Which really doesn't mean much, as they do a fine job of mocking themselves.

Don't be stupid Roy. Cleric Archers are the best 3.5 Clerics that exist.

You literally can't make a 3.5 Cleric that is better than a Cleric Archer.

And since these are Clerics, that's saying something.

Lol HP damage. That is all.

[ubernoob]

Cleric Archers use wisdom to attack (zen archery) and stack up persist spells. So they have +Crazy defenses, the ability to just full attack anything with +insane saves, and the ability to also cast save or dies when that is quicker.

Seriously Roy, you do have to kill some things with HP damage. For example, most Outsiders. They have really good saves, but they actually have sane hit points so it's quicker to drop most of them with a full attack from 400 feet.

[Surgo]

There are several ways to kill something in D&D. One of them is HP damage. If you can do enough HP damage, you can kill something pretty fast. I don't know why some people have trouble realizing this.

[Roy]

Neither of which changes the fact that ranged does poor in the damage department compared to melee, and that the best case for HP damage is... as good as what you could do out of the box, making the whole melee or archer or whatthefuckever thing immaterial.

That sort of thing is great when you want to laugh at beatsticks, but much like Wizards and wall building they have better shit to do with their time.

[virgil]

This is Roy we're talking about here. If the PC isn't doing 25 damage per level with an attack bonus of +4/level MINIMUM, then he's an utter waste on the party that deserves to be killed in his sleep so his equipment can be used by competent people.

[Kaelik]

Lol HP damage. That is all.

Lol, why would I use HP damage against the Succubus Paladin? Save or Die lol!

Or you know, with just Persisted buffs you can attack for +40/+40/+40/+40/+40/+40/+40/+40/+35/+35/+35/+35/+30/+30/+30/+30for 3d8+39 each.

Seriously, lol HP damage on a Cleric Archer actually kills anything subject to attack rolls. Which, since that's level 11, and you have True Seeing, is everything.