Discussion:Unearthed Arcana: Flaws - Unbalanced?
From D&D Wiki
Unearthed Arcana: Flaws - Unbalanced & Bad for the Game?[edit]
DMintheNW 16:05, April 21, 2009 [edit]
So what I would like to know from the wonderful folks here at the D&D Wiki is their opinions on Flaws in Unearthed Arcana. I've had my Playership recently spring this on me, unexpectedly, and I allowed it (yes, I know, bad DM). But I've been looking at how most of my Playership has been working their Flaws and noticed that they've been taking Flaws that have very little numerical impact on their characters just so they can get Bonus Feats. Now, as my co-DM pointed out to me, this is very bad form. It even states it in the Sidebar in Unearthed Arcana for Creating Flaws. So, in addition to the question I've already asked of "Are Flaws unbalancing and, thus, bad for the Game?" I'd like to ask of the more experienced DMs out there, what does one do about it? We've only had one actual play session of my game and I can already see things spiraling out of control. Anything you guys/gals can think of would be greatly appreciated.
Surgo 10:29, 21 April 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Where are these flaws coming from? The ones in UA have numerical impact and are generally okay for the kind of feats that are printed in the WotC books. The ones found in Dragon Magazine, on the other hand, are straight-up bad for the game, do not follow guidelines found in UA, and seem to have been written by consulting a dartboard.
How are things "spiraling out of control", exactly? You'll need to describe the situation a bit more.
DMintheNW 17:56, April 21, 2009[edit]
The Flaws are coming from Unearthed Arcana. As to how things are "spiraling out of control," take the following example: One of my Playership has taken the Noncombatant Flaw. This, numericaly, imposes a -2 penalty on all melee attack roles. The PC is making up for this penalty for focusing, primarily, on ranged combat.
TK-Squared 12:06, 21 April 2009 (MDT)[edit]
If you're bad at x, do you do x, or do you do y, which you're good at? A flaw represents something you're BAD at; so why on earth would you specialize something you're bad at? The Noncombatant/Ranged or Shaky/Melee is a common staple and actually MAKES sense. Flaws are numerically balanced, they are fine. The problem is you're not increasing the impact of these flaws. Bad at melee? Put them in melee. Murky-Eyed (Another commonly taken flaw), invisible enemies. Etc, etc. UA Flaws are fine, they're balanced on a 2:1::penalty:advantage scale mostly. It's your job as the DM to highlight their flaws, not just say "OH TOO POWERFUL BAN".
Everyone except the Fighter is feat starved; everyone has choices they want, but'll never get without choosing a feat or two at first level. Unless you're doing some serious shenanigans with Chaos Shuffling.
But, it's also relevant that Unearthed Arcana is not a RULE book it is a VARIANT book. Everything given in the book is a VARIANT RULE and are not a liberty to a player, but a gift (unless using some of the crap ones).
DMintheNW Thank you very much, TK, for pointing that out. I had, originally, planned for something to that effect. In the group that I have, however, targeting one player is extremely difficult to do. The Melee characters protect the Ranged and, consequently, far outweigh the Ranged PCs by a fair number. I'm really going to have to mix it up a bit to challenge all of my Playership - not just one member. [edit]
DMintheNW 9:14 AM, 5 May 2009 [edit]
TK-Squared - Thank you, again, for your words of wisdom. As you pointed out, it is the DM's job to counter what his/her Playership does with their characters. On the other hand, however, the Playership has to counter what the DM puts before them - The way a favorite game of mine put it, "One can only hope to match, move by move, the machinations of Fate and thus defy the tyranous stars." I got to thinking on that very line, recently, and I've been making some serious adjustments to my game.
What I would like to do is emphasize what the group lacks, that being a cleric and a focused spell-caster. If I were to out-maneuver my group in physical combat, I'd lose - horribly. Any recommendations?
Ghostwheel 11:25, 14 July 2009 (MDT)[edit]
Rather than as something for roleplaying, I see flaws as a mechanical addition to the game. From a design/metagame point of view, one can see that when D&D 3.5 was first published, there were so few feats out there that few feats were needed over the course of 20 levels. However, as the game grew, people needed more and more feats. Thus, the designers put out flaws to give people the extra little "umph" they needed. Another good thing about flaws is that feats are most often needed by meleers, who are for the most part easily outclassed by casters. (For example, a charger needs Leap Attack, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Improved Sunder, and Combat Brute. A wizard just needs to cast Glitterdust.) Thus, the addition of flaws helps give fighter-types a much-needed boost in power while not affecting the casters too much. After all, the Druid for example needs only Natural Spell at level 6. Two extra flaws at 1st level aren't going to change his power level much.
Back to Main Page → Meta Pages → Discussions
