Talk:Petit Mal Seizures (3.5e Flaw)

Balance

This doesn't adhere to any real standards. and flaws shouldn't have saves, they should impose a permanent negative, not an avoidable one. And not every possible thing a person can have wrong with them needs a flaw. --Name Violation 15:12, 22 November 2009 (MST)

I added Template:Needsbalance as such. Feel free to add as appropriate, of course. --Green Dragon 16:25, 22 November 2009 (MST)

I addressed the concerns about balance on this flaw, As far as I can see it is now a decent though very severe flaw. I disagree to a certain extent that not ever possible thing a person can have wrong needs a flaw, there is really no reason not to, its great to have choices, though I admit that honestly some flaws do get a little petty. --Starcry 10:34, 25 November 2009 (MST)

=/ I don't see why this needs balance, this flaw is rather crippling.

Well it is balanced now, though yes still very crippling! Its more for roleplay use than anything and If I allowed a pc to play this I would give him something to offset it. Perhaps more magic (thats causing the whole mess) or mabye a curse that can be removed through play in case they change their mind (a NASTY curse though)--Starcry 8:38, 20th December 2010 (MST)

Defining Stressed

I'm not tryin' to pick a fight, honest~ The main issue in this flaw is the poor definition of when it occurs. Perhaps rolling an Epilepsy save when 'Threatened or distracted', similar to the restrictions on taking 10 for skill checks, could be a good basis? Or maybe when rolling initiative/saves/skill checks/attack rolls while threatened, I'unno, maybe something along those lines would be a sound improvement into a workable flaw? --SgtLion (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2015 (MDT)

In my opinion a flaw should start with a clear mechanical detriment and then the description/fluff/roleplay is written to match it. This flaw starts by trying to simulate a real-life neurological disease, but isn't sure how to do it.

How to fix?

The flaw should not simulate severe seizures. A tonic-clonic seizure means the character is incapacitated for 10-30 seconds (2-5 rounds) followed by 10 to 30 minutes of recovery. This character could not risk being on their own while adventuring. Even in a group, it puts pressure on the other PCs if they will sometimes be one person down during a fight. Also not much fun for the player, no-one likes not being able to act, even for 1 round.

So for this to work, it should just be the absence seizure.

What triggering factor? Wikipedia does say that stress or lack of sleep is associated. Being "threatened or distracted" isn't an event trigger, it describes any action-based encounter. Maybe it could be whenever the character fails a skill or ability check by 5 or more.

Is this even a suitable flaw? The guidelines say that a flaw has "a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities" Marasmusine (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2015 (MDT)

Them some fair points - And you've been trawling the specifics of flaw pages much more than I have, to be sure. I agree mainly, and the severe seizures do seem a little silly, so reducing it to simply absence ones would leave the playable aspect intact. Failing a skill/ability check by 5+ seems like a reasonable detriment, I can dig that.

I think this falls entirely within the remit of "a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities". To start with, the spirit of that sentence seems to simply be non-fiat/roleplay/etc penalties - But if you want to parse it by the letter, one can't deny this (save for the article's agreedly unusable definition of 'stressed') has an effect on a character's specific capabilities that is based solely on numbers and definite rules, as UA's own flaws do.

As above, I'm happy with us reducing this to the absence severity, and changing the trigger condition of 'stressed' to failing checks by amounts. Perhaps even with further penalties when tired/exhausted, if y'wanna stick close to fluff mechano powers. --SgtLion (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2015 (MDT)