Talk:Informal Training (3.5e Flaw)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The conditions for the flaw are far too narrow. It might be worth a flaw if the character can't use Fighting Defensively or Total Defense at all. Marasmusine (talk) 09:28, 31 July 2015 (MDT)
- What's the problem? Marasmusine (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2015 (MDT)
- Losing AC bonuses against a wide array of attacks (which includes, at a rough estimate, 90% of what's in the Monster Manuals) is already a punishing limitation, especially given that it specifically includes bonuses from the one feat that would otherwise circumvent it. While the penalty for a flaw does need to be greater than the bonus for a feat as a means of compensation for the natural tendency to make optimal choices, by the same token it should be no greater than necessary or there will be no circumstance in which the flaw would be a superior choice to others. In my opinion, your proposed change would make the drawback so severe that no one would ever choose to take it. The current form is in keeping with existing flaws which include a mechanism by which they can be averted, and certainly more severe than many, including most 1st-party flaws. Shaky and Noncombatant will never affect certain builds, a caster with Magic Missile couldn't care less about Murky Eyed, Inattentive penalizes two skills that many players (in my personal experience) don't even take, and Unreactive won't matter to characters with poor initiative to begin with who are expecting to go last already. For a "back-row" caster, even the occasional possibility of affecting Concentration checks will barely be a blip on the radar when considering Feeble. I could go on, but it's pretty much like that across the board. However, everyone gets targeted by attacks sometimes, and could therefore have benefited from the additional AC that this flaw would prevent them from gaining. KefkeWren (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2015 (MDT)
- We must have had wildly different campaigns then! I barely ever saw these two combat options being used. I like to see a flaw be relevant in about 1 in every 3 encounters (combat or otherwise). I agree that some of the UA flaws are poor designs (subsequent flaws published in Dragon were much better). If your 90% figure is true, then I'm surprised at your reaction considering I was suggesting having it cover the last 10% of creatures. Marasmusine (talk)
- I've read the Dragon flaws too, and even there I would argue that this is less specialized and more of a significant penalty than a healthy number of them. For instance, much as I adore "No Time for Book Learning" for my illiterate polyglot (trading it for Gift of Tongues), knowledge penalties and illiteracy are very much the sort of thing that typically doesn't apply to the stoic fighter who just hits stuff. As I said before, flaws can't be completely crippling, or they'll never be taken. There comes a point where, in my opinion, you just have to look at "Would there ever be a time where I'd wish I didn't have this flaw?" and if the answer for most characters is yes, leave it to the DM to handle fringe cases...especially since we're talking about user submissions on a wiki here, which is already going to be even more subject to DM approval than usual. KefkeWren (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2015 (MDT)
- Since it's been a number of years since I've played 3.5e I will defer to your experience with this. Marasmusine (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2015 (MDT)
- I've read the Dragon flaws too, and even there I would argue that this is less specialized and more of a significant penalty than a healthy number of them. For instance, much as I adore "No Time for Book Learning" for my illiterate polyglot (trading it for Gift of Tongues), knowledge penalties and illiteracy are very much the sort of thing that typically doesn't apply to the stoic fighter who just hits stuff. As I said before, flaws can't be completely crippling, or they'll never be taken. There comes a point where, in my opinion, you just have to look at "Would there ever be a time where I'd wish I didn't have this flaw?" and if the answer for most characters is yes, leave it to the DM to handle fringe cases...especially since we're talking about user submissions on a wiki here, which is already going to be even more subject to DM approval than usual. KefkeWren (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2015 (MDT)
- We must have had wildly different campaigns then! I barely ever saw these two combat options being used. I like to see a flaw be relevant in about 1 in every 3 encounters (combat or otherwise). I agree that some of the UA flaws are poor designs (subsequent flaws published in Dragon were much better). If your 90% figure is true, then I'm surprised at your reaction considering I was suggesting having it cover the last 10% of creatures. Marasmusine (talk)
- Losing AC bonuses against a wide array of attacks (which includes, at a rough estimate, 90% of what's in the Monster Manuals) is already a punishing limitation, especially given that it specifically includes bonuses from the one feat that would otherwise circumvent it. While the penalty for a flaw does need to be greater than the bonus for a feat as a means of compensation for the natural tendency to make optimal choices, by the same token it should be no greater than necessary or there will be no circumstance in which the flaw would be a superior choice to others. In my opinion, your proposed change would make the drawback so severe that no one would ever choose to take it. The current form is in keeping with existing flaws which include a mechanism by which they can be averted, and certainly more severe than many, including most 1st-party flaws. Shaky and Noncombatant will never affect certain builds, a caster with Magic Missile couldn't care less about Murky Eyed, Inattentive penalizes two skills that many players (in my personal experience) don't even take, and Unreactive won't matter to characters with poor initiative to begin with who are expecting to go last already. For a "back-row" caster, even the occasional possibility of affecting Concentration checks will barely be a blip on the radar when considering Feeble. I could go on, but it's pretty much like that across the board. However, everyone gets targeted by attacks sometimes, and could therefore have benefited from the additional AC that this flaw would prevent them from gaining. KefkeWren (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2015 (MDT)