I love the 4d6 system, because it keeps a first level human fighter from being the same as every other first level human fighter. With SA and PB, there's always a best set of ability scores for a powergamer to use and EVERYONE IS THE SAME.
That statement is factually wrong, on every level. A Dex based Champion Fighter will have a totally different focus on their stats than a Str Based Eldritch Knight, or a Samurai that has a secondary focus on Wisdom.
There is one reason, and one reason only: To get better starting stats.
Or interesting stats. I am right, if not specific. If you use SA, all dex champions will have nearly identical stats. So will all samurai. And Str EKs.
Nice movement of the goalposts. How about moving them again, when I state that Dex based Champions and Str based Champions, EK"s, and Samurai all have different stats that their Str based counterparts. Your argument is the equivalent of "all Warlocks have a high CHA", except weaker.
You moved them first. There are no first level champions or EK or Samurai. (First level fighters being the key words that Halfastbracegirdle used.)
I love the 4d6 system, because it keeps a first level human fighter from being the same as every other first level human fighter. With SA and PB, there's always a best set of ability scores for a powergamer to use and EVERYONE IS THE SAME.
That statement is factually wrong, on every level. A Dex based Champion Fighter will have a totally different focus on their stats than a Str Based Eldritch Knight, or a Samurai that has a secondary focus on Wisdom.
There is one reason, and one reason only: To get better starting stats.
Or interesting stats. I am right, if not specific. If you use SA, all dex champions will have nearly identical stats. So will all samurai. And Str EKs.
Nice movement of the goalposts. How about moving them again, when I state that Dex based Champions and Str based Champions, EK"s, and Samurai all have different stats that their Str based counterparts. Your argument is the equivalent of "all Warlocks have a high CHA", except weaker.
You moved them first. There are no first level champions or EK or Samurai. (First level fighters being the key words that Halfastbracegirdle used.)
Reminder that statistics are often misleading. Several things to note:
With point buy statistics, note that since 14/15 requires 2 points rather than one, that means for every stat above 13 your average goes down. So if your played a optimized 15/14/8/whatever character, you will have a absolutely terrible average compared to a less optimized like 13/13/13/whatever which would have a higher average. So statistics are a bit missleading.
With rolling, yeah those statistics are what they sound like. In most tables even those statistics are misleading cause people tend to make a lot of hb rules around rolling.
As for the actual debate of 4d6 or not, my own post is like 20 pages into the past and basically just do whatever makes you happy. This thread has really 0 reason to exist, not sure why a random rant managed to turn up 31 pages of discussion (all of which boils down to "ah but rolled stats can have a better average and people get upset when they do bad, therefore everyone is a powergamer" vs "people play however they want and generalized statements like that are terrible and completely useless.")
If I can take 31 pages of discussion and summarize it in 2 sentences then clearly something is wrong.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Why not ask Your DM if you can take a flaw like a potion dependence that gives you better stats, but also withdraw, dependence, or some freaky or scary side effect?
I actually very much like the idea of 'Flaw' feats that impose a penalty on your character in exchange for a bit of extra strength somewhere else. When selected and set up correctly, and in the hands of a player who's using them to shape a character ideal rather than fish for Biggah Numbahs, flaw-style feats can be a lot of fun. Similarly to players who're very good at playing up their disadvantages/Hindrances in a GURPS or Savage Worlds game.
The issue, unfortunately, is that many of the DMs who disfavor rolling for stats do so specifically because they want to impose a strict upper limit on the overall capacity of the PCs. This isn't always necessarily because that DM is a Grinch, either - players are usually exceptionally good at weaseling out of any real impact from 'flaws' and turning those drawbacks negligible in exchange for MOAR POWAH. One example is the extremely common advice for players who want to play drow (or kobolds) to focus on classes that impose saves as opposed to making attacks. A drow's sunlight sensitivity has no impact on saving throws, allowing them to have their cake and eat it too.
A certain amount of that sort of thing is natural - any adventurer with a glaring weakness is going to take some steps to try and redress that weakness. But players will often try and assign flaws to their characters that are irrelevant or meaningless. Things like "I'm colorblind in my right eye" or "pristine white clothes make me uncomfortable", or other 'flaws' that are far too specific or which are specifically designed to fall off the DM's radar and never come up. That's just no fun for anyone involved.
One of my favorite flaws is honestly the following.
Curse of Ill Fortune Whether born under the wrong star, to a bloodline cursed by hags, or through sheer cosmic cruelty, you've spent your life cursed by ill fortune. Luck is rarely with you, and wild happenstances rob you of your victories at the worst moments. A life spent fighting against misfortune means you've been forced to become tougher than anyone else just to survive, but misfortune is ever waiting for its chance.
You gain the following traits.
Increase one of your ability scores by 2, or two of your ability scores by 1.
You cannot possess the Lucky feat, or any other feat that grants you improved luck (at the DM's discretion)
Whenever you make an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw and succeed, the DM can have you reroll the d20 and use the new result, potentially turning your success into failure. He or she can do so once and regains the ability to mess with you whenever you complete a long rest. If you use a class feature or experience an event that calls for a percentile roll or a d20 roll not related to your attacks, checks, or saves, the DM can trigger your misfortune to have you roll twice and accept the more unfortunate result.
That way, it's not up to you to play your flaw (though you definitely still should). Curse of Ill Fortune is you giving your DM explicit permission to screw you over once per adventuring day in exchange for a bonus ASI to patch up your numbers with. Not everybody will be willing to go for that trade, but that's kinda the point. Not everybody should, and the people who do have no complaints coming when the DM uses their misfortune to bust a delicate situation wide open, foil their stealth, or otherwise drop them in the pot. Because that's what being a misfortunate person means.
I have always felt that Flaws are better tools for the DM rather than something that Players should be role playing. They should always have some mechanical effect attached to them because Flaws that are RP centric aren't actually Flaws most of the time and rarely impact the game.
You can absolutely have 'RP-centric' flaws that have a deep impact on the game. The issue is that most people don't really push "RP flaws' further than "is conditionally an *******". Things like "I don't trust magic-users so I'm gonna be an ******* to the party's spellcasters and any other weaver of the dark arts we meet", or "Orcs killed my Tragic backstory Family so any time an orc is around I'm gonna be an ******* to that orc in specific and everyone else in general". Those are usually flat and boring, they're the low-hanging fruit of character flaws.
More interesting 'RP' flaws are things like "The customs of my people insist I conduct a one-hour ritual prayer every morning when I awaken. If I cannot do so I will not use my magic, for fear of angering the gods of my people." Or "I am a paladin of Redemption, repenting my sins of Glory in the past. For every thinking, breathing person I am forced to kill, I must carve a prayer bead and add it to my rosary, remembering their death and my failure to prevent it." Things that shape the character's actions, constrain their methods, or evoke their beliefs rather than purely reactionary "is there an [X] in the room? ******* Time" nonsense that generally just bogs the game down in the DM having to deal with a querulous *******.
'Course, most people don't consider those sorts of things 'flaws', but instead see them as simply Playing A Character. But I'm of the belief that someone who faithfully plays a character with a difficult trait that constrains their methods or eats up their time, they should be rewarded for it. A couple of bonus stat points is as good a reward as any.
The problem lies in exactly what you pointed out. The issue is that most people don't really push "RP flaws' further than "is conditionally an *******"
I personally love it when players take that next step as Role Players and add the Flaws into the game themselves. But that is too rare to be relied upon.
Never played Fate. Any time I've heard it discussed the reactions to it have been distinctly mixed. FInd myself curious - what's an 'Aspect' in that system?
This thread has really 0 reason to exist, not sure why a random rant managed to turn up 31 pages of discussion....
I have often wondered the same myself. I honestly suspect that some folks plan a weekly/biweekly rant topic specifically to generate interaction like this. Maybe their lifelong goal was to be like Denis Miller, but they aren’t funny enough for TV/Radio, so to the interwebs they go. (This is why I avoid almost all social media and forum sites except this one. At least here I know the topic is one in which I’m interested, and the market is niche enough exclude most of the mongrelites who pray on unsuspecting users in sites like Redit. (And the roving pacs of furries* too. 🙄)
*
Not that I have anything against furries in principle, we all got our things. But c’mon, there are sites specifically for that stuff. Go get a fetlife account and scritch all you want, but stop tryin’a annex Redit forums like they’re Crimea. Good grief.
You can absolutely have 'RP-centric' flaws that have a deep impact on the game. The issue is that most people don't really push "RP flaws' further than "is conditionally an *******". Things like "I don't trust magic-users so I'm gonna be an ******* to the party's spellcasters and any other weaver of the dark arts we meet", or "Orcs killed my Tragic backstory Family so any time an orc is around I'm gonna be an ******* to that orc in specific and everyone else in general". Those are usually flat and boring, they're the low-hanging fruit of character flaws.
More interesting 'RP' flaws are things like "The customs of my people insist I conduct a one-hour ritual prayer every morning when I awaken. If I cannot do so I will not use my magic, for fear of angering the gods of my people." Or "I am a paladin of Redemption, repenting my sins of Glory in the past. For every thinking, breathing person I am forced to kill, I must carve a prayer bead and add it to my rosary, remembering their death and my failure to prevent it." Things that shape the character's actions, constrain their methods, or evoke their beliefs rather than purely reactionary "is there an [X] in the room? ******* Time" nonsense that generally just bogs the game down in the DM having to deal with a querulous *******.
'Course, most people don't consider those sorts of things 'flaws', but instead see them as simply Playing A Character. But I'm of the belief that someone who faithfully plays a character with a difficult trait that constrains their methods or eats up their time, they should be rewarded for it. A couple of bonus stat points is as good a reward as any.
Then you need DM adjudication. "I am a paladin of Redemption, repenting my sins of Glory in the past. For every thinking, breathing person I am forced to kill, I must carve a prayer bead and add it to my rosary, remembering their death and my failure to prevent it" - that's as written not much of a effective flaw, for instance. But if "forced" really means forced, so your vow doesn't let you kill people unless as an absolute last resort, then it is. Which means your DM should probably judge how strictly you actually hold to that vow, and revoke your bonus ability points if you're found lacking. Which can be difficult, in practice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Whenever people start talking about flaw mechanics I always want to import Aspects from Fate wholesale.
It’s probably just because we played so much of it, but I always think of World of Darkness. I can’t speak to the newer edition, only the one from the ‘90s. However that Merits and Flaws system is actually something my group briefly discussed importing to D&D. (I might consider that for a future Homebrew project.... 🤔)
'Course, most people don't consider those sorts of things 'flaws', but instead see them as simply Playing A Character. But I'm of the belief that someone who faithfully plays a character with a difficult trait that constrains their methods or eats up their time, they should be rewarded for it. A couple of bonus stat points is as good a reward as any.
That's what inspiration is supposed to be about, though the actual implementation is a horrible mess. The benefit of a system that triggers when the trait actually causes problems for the character is that you don't need to figure out how common or rare the issue is -- if it only causes problems rarely you'll only get a benefit rarely, if it causes frequent problems you'll get frequent benefits.
The Redemption paladin is actually a character I DM'd for (if briefly), Pang. The two of us worked out her redemption arc after her zeal as an Oath of Glory paladin caused her to abandon the party for reasons of Being A D&D Party (redneck womanizer dwarf and cannibalistic lizardman turned out to Offend Divine Sensibilities). We worked out her return to the party and change of Oaths later. The rule was that any time she killed a humanoid or other sapient being (other than demons/devils/undead/Acceptable Paladin Targets), she had to spend one hour of time carving a prayer bead for that person, as soon after the act as she could. She could continue fighting if a fight was breaking out and see to the wounds of her allies in the immediate aftermath of a fight, but the general idea was that she could not begin a long rest without carving beads if she had beads to carve. If that meant skipping a long rest because she'd done poorly and had too many beads to carve? That's the price of her new path.
The game didn't last long enough past this point for me to really dig into it, and this was done for other reasons so there were no bonus character points, but I trusted this specific player to not only take the time to carve when it came up, but to play the paladin as doing everything in her power to avoid slaughter. It does indeed take more effort and adjudication to work up real flaws like that, but it's also worth it when it's feasible.
@Pantagruel: By-the-book Inspiration is a terrible bloody piece of design. Terrible. Sadly I haven't figured out a proper way to fix it yet. You have a point in that a system which 'rewards' playing into your flaws is self-regulating, but it's also a perverse incentive - it encourages players to fish for that Inspiration bonus by shoving their 'flaw' around. A DM can ride herd on that, but a lot of players get upset when rewards for "roleplaying" are arbitrary and they can't just push button A to receive bonus B. Good players know the difference between playing their character and being an oaf fishing for bonuses they don't merit, but it takes time for a player to learn those skills.
And frankly, even mediocre players deserve to be able to play a game of D&D. Just means the DM has to run the game differently, and know what they're in for.
@Pantagruel: By-the-book Inspiration is a terrible bloody piece of design. Terrible. Sadly I haven't figured out a proper way to fix it yet.
Inspiration appears to be someone seeing mechanics in other systems (e.g. Aspects in FATE) and doing a poor job rolling their own variant. The simplest fix is probably to just steal from some other game and express the mechanical benefits in D&D terms. As a minimal adjustment, I would probably make inspiration a reroll instead of advantage, but I would trigger earning them on being actually disadvantaged.
The Redemption paladin is actually a character I DM'd for (if briefly), Pang. The two of us worked out her redemption arc after her zeal as an Oath of Glory paladin caused her to abandon the party for reasons of Being A D&D Party (redneck womanizer dwarf and cannibalistic lizardman turned out to Offend Divine Sensibilities). We worked out her return to the party and change of Oaths later. The rule was that any time she killed a humanoid or other sapient being (other than demons/devils/undead/Acceptable Paladin Targets), she had to spend one hour of time carving a prayer bead for that person, as soon after the act as she could. She could continue fighting if a fight was breaking out and see to the wounds of her allies in the immediate aftermath of a fight, but the general idea was that she could not begin a long rest without carving beads if she had beads to carve. If that meant skipping a long rest because she'd done poorly and had too many beads to carve? That's the price of her new path.
The game didn't last long enough past this point for me to really dig into it, and this was done for other reasons so there were no bonus character points, but I trusted this specific player to not only take the time to carve when it came up, but to play the paladin as doing everything in her power to avoid slaughter. It does indeed take more effort and adjudication to work up real flaws like that, but it's also worth it when it's feasible.
I got plenty of experience with flaws from Legend of the Five Rings. It's an official part of character creation in that game. I don't mind the extra work at all, nor do I begrudge the player their advantage (it's typically an easy hook, so really a boon for the GM), but depending on how well GM and player understand each other it can be a point of contention too. Not making any claims about my personal GMing qualities, but especially for a GM who's inexperienced and/or has inexperienced players it can be a troublesome mechanic. Kind of a high risk/high reward sort of thing. That's why it might sometimes be better (or at least less contentious) not to make it too much of a quid pro quo thing. If everyone gets a character flaw it just becomes part of the game, for instance.
I find point buy to be absolutely superior to every other rolling system. It enforced linear fairness across the board.
I don’t buy the whole “well then my character is too similar to another character if we do this!”
1) stats don’t a role player make. If your only way of making a character unique is to role play high strength and low intelligence, then I’ll coach the player through their background, help them craft a story, etc.
2) how many campaigns have the exact same type of character in them? Two EK Fighters, both Dex based? Unlikely
Next, “But my hero should be powerful, not mediocre!”
1) a fallacy - heroism is relative. I play in a campaign where we rolled stats and have extra Feats - guess what, we are all 20s across the board in all the stats that we want... and I’ve never felt so mediocre in a campaign before.
2) heroism is also a state of character and campaign. Stats don’t make a role player and they don’t make heroes either. Having 20 strength doesn’t make you a hero. Neither does a 4 in intelligence. The story makes you a hero.
3) If your intention is to feel like a hero compared to your allies who rolled worse, then you’re just a selfish human. Wanting to start off mechanically better than your allies to feed some ego trip is also not a good formula for a good game.
Then to counteract these stats people come up with the idea of “flaws”...
1) Play any all the flaws you want. Why do you need it codified in the rules? Why are we creating mechanics for something that you can entirely roleplay? Do you get advantages then for choosing a flaw? How twisted is that, that you need to balance it somehow so you can play a character?
2) any time there’s a flaws system, the same guy that wants all the best stats will also choose the best flaw to combine with their mechanical advantage that again... feeds their ego of being better than their companions.
I see far too many times where people base an entire way of playing because of their stats. When was the last time you took a Feat instead of maxing out your primary star? You have SO MANY opportunities to give your character statistical flaws but constantly choose against it, then some will come here and get upset that point buy is too “cookie cutter”
In my opinion, if a simple fair stat buying system is too homogenous, then you’re playing the game wrong. Take lower stats. Don’t spend all your points then. Make yourself weaker than your allies so THEY can feel like heroes. Yeah. I didn’t think so.
The number of people in here wanting a mechanical benefit to just playing their character is unreal. How did this game turn into rat-push-button-get-food-roleplay instead of just roleplay? Why is everything linked to some mechanism? Is this why people get upset with D&D nowadays, because it doesn’t properly reward you for every little nuance that you want to do and therefore you don’t do it?
I am stunned. If a PC in my game wanted to roleplay a serious flaw, I let them. I don’t give them fancy cookies for it - that sets a precedent that roleplay is supposed to give you some kind of advantage with the DM. Roleplay advances the story and creates amazing scenes in D&D, it’s not some free points for stats scheme.
Edit: for clarity, I DM/play 2-3 times a week, and nobody I play with has issues playing flawed characters. We all create characters with heroic tendencies and great limitations, with literally zero expectation of some kind of mechanical benefit because of it. None of us have even asked or expected such a thing from a DM. Inspiration is literally like a tiny chocolate chip we get to chew on once in a while, and that’s all we would ever need. The roleplay is its own reward.
You moved them first. There are no first level champions or EK or Samurai. (First level fighters being the key words that Halfastbracegirdle used.)
Thank you! Somebody reasonable!
I have a weird sense of humor.
I also make maps.(That's a link)
If someone rolled averagely for stats, according to statistics they would have worse stats than most characters. That's all I'll say.
Come participate in the Competition of the Finest Brews, Edition XXVIII?
My homebrew stuff:
Spells, Monsters, Magic Items, Feats, Subclasses.
I am an Archfey, but nobody seems to notice.
Extended Signature
Reminder that statistics are often misleading. Several things to note:
With point buy statistics, note that since 14/15 requires 2 points rather than one, that means for every stat above 13 your average goes down. So if your played a optimized 15/14/8/whatever character, you will have a absolutely terrible average compared to a less optimized like 13/13/13/whatever which would have a higher average. So statistics are a bit missleading.
With rolling, yeah those statistics are what they sound like. In most tables even those statistics are misleading cause people tend to make a lot of hb rules around rolling.
As for the actual debate of 4d6 or not, my own post is like 20 pages into the past and basically just do whatever makes you happy. This thread has really 0 reason to exist, not sure why a random rant managed to turn up 31 pages of discussion (all of which boils down to "ah but rolled stats can have a better average and people get upset when they do bad, therefore everyone is a powergamer" vs "people play however they want and generalized statements like that are terrible and completely useless.")
If I can take 31 pages of discussion and summarize it in 2 sentences then clearly something is wrong.
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
Why not ask Your DM if you can take a flaw like a potion dependence that gives you better stats, but also withdraw, dependence, or some freaky or scary side effect?
I actually very much like the idea of 'Flaw' feats that impose a penalty on your character in exchange for a bit of extra strength somewhere else. When selected and set up correctly, and in the hands of a player who's using them to shape a character ideal rather than fish for Biggah Numbahs, flaw-style feats can be a lot of fun. Similarly to players who're very good at playing up their disadvantages/Hindrances in a GURPS or Savage Worlds game.
The issue, unfortunately, is that many of the DMs who disfavor rolling for stats do so specifically because they want to impose a strict upper limit on the overall capacity of the PCs. This isn't always necessarily because that DM is a Grinch, either - players are usually exceptionally good at weaseling out of any real impact from 'flaws' and turning those drawbacks negligible in exchange for MOAR POWAH. One example is the extremely common advice for players who want to play drow (or kobolds) to focus on classes that impose saves as opposed to making attacks. A drow's sunlight sensitivity has no impact on saving throws, allowing them to have their cake and eat it too.
A certain amount of that sort of thing is natural - any adventurer with a glaring weakness is going to take some steps to try and redress that weakness. But players will often try and assign flaws to their characters that are irrelevant or meaningless. Things like "I'm colorblind in my right eye" or "pristine white clothes make me uncomfortable", or other 'flaws' that are far too specific or which are specifically designed to fall off the DM's radar and never come up. That's just no fun for anyone involved.
One of my favorite flaws is honestly the following.
Curse of Ill Fortune
Whether born under the wrong star, to a bloodline cursed by hags, or through sheer cosmic cruelty, you've spent your life cursed by ill fortune. Luck is rarely with you, and wild happenstances rob you of your victories at the worst moments. A life spent fighting against misfortune means you've been forced to become tougher than anyone else just to survive, but misfortune is ever waiting for its chance.
You gain the following traits.
That way, it's not up to you to play your flaw (though you definitely still should). Curse of Ill Fortune is you giving your DM explicit permission to screw you over once per adventuring day in exchange for a bonus ASI to patch up your numbers with. Not everybody will be willing to go for that trade, but that's kinda the point. Not everybody should, and the people who do have no complaints coming when the DM uses their misfortune to bust a delicate situation wide open, foil their stealth, or otherwise drop them in the pot. Because that's what being a misfortunate person means.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have always felt that Flaws are better tools for the DM rather than something that Players should be role playing. They should always have some mechanical effect attached to them because Flaws that are RP centric aren't actually Flaws most of the time and rarely impact the game.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
You can absolutely have 'RP-centric' flaws that have a deep impact on the game. The issue is that most people don't really push "RP flaws' further than "is conditionally an *******". Things like "I don't trust magic-users so I'm gonna be an ******* to the party's spellcasters and any other weaver of the dark arts we meet", or "Orcs killed my Tragic backstory Family so any time an orc is around I'm gonna be an ******* to that orc in specific and everyone else in general". Those are usually flat and boring, they're the low-hanging fruit of character flaws.
More interesting 'RP' flaws are things like "The customs of my people insist I conduct a one-hour ritual prayer every morning when I awaken. If I cannot do so I will not use my magic, for fear of angering the gods of my people." Or "I am a paladin of Redemption, repenting my sins of Glory in the past. For every thinking, breathing person I am forced to kill, I must carve a prayer bead and add it to my rosary, remembering their death and my failure to prevent it." Things that shape the character's actions, constrain their methods, or evoke their beliefs rather than purely reactionary "is there an [X] in the room? ******* Time" nonsense that generally just bogs the game down in the DM having to deal with a querulous *******.
'Course, most people don't consider those sorts of things 'flaws', but instead see them as simply Playing A Character. But I'm of the belief that someone who faithfully plays a character with a difficult trait that constrains their methods or eats up their time, they should be rewarded for it. A couple of bonus stat points is as good a reward as any.
Please do not contact or message me.
The problem lies in exactly what you pointed out. The issue is that most people don't really push "RP flaws' further than "is conditionally an *******"
I personally love it when players take that next step as Role Players and add the Flaws into the game themselves. But that is too rare to be relied upon.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Whenever people start talking about flaw mechanics I always want to import Aspects from Fate wholesale.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Never played Fate. Any time I've heard it discussed the reactions to it have been distinctly mixed. FInd myself curious - what's an 'Aspect' in that system?
Please do not contact or message me.
I have often wondered the same myself. I honestly suspect that some folks plan a weekly/biweekly rant topic specifically to generate interaction like this. Maybe their lifelong goal was to be like Denis Miller, but they aren’t funny enough for TV/Radio, so to the interwebs they go. (This is why I avoid almost all social media and forum sites except this one. At least here I know the topic is one in which I’m interested, and the market is niche enough exclude most of the mongrelites who pray on unsuspecting users in sites like Redit. (And the roving pacs of furries* too. 🙄)
*
Not that I have anything against furries in principle, we all got our things. But c’mon, there are sites specifically for that stuff. Go get a fetlife account and scritch all you want, but stop tryin’a annex Redit forums like they’re Crimea. Good grief.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Then you need DM adjudication. "I am a paladin of Redemption, repenting my sins of Glory in the past. For every thinking, breathing person I am forced to kill, I must carve a prayer bead and add it to my rosary, remembering their death and my failure to prevent it" - that's as written not much of a effective flaw, for instance. But if "forced" really means forced, so your vow doesn't let you kill people unless as an absolute last resort, then it is. Which means your DM should probably judge how strictly you actually hold to that vow, and revoke your bonus ability points if you're found lacking. Which can be difficult, in practice.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
It’s probably just because we played so much of it, but I always think of World of Darkness. I can’t speak to the newer edition, only the one from the ‘90s. However that Merits and Flaws system is actually something my group briefly discussed importing to D&D. (I might consider that for a future Homebrew project.... 🤔)
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's what inspiration is supposed to be about, though the actual implementation is a horrible mess. The benefit of a system that triggers when the trait actually causes problems for the character is that you don't need to figure out how common or rare the issue is -- if it only causes problems rarely you'll only get a benefit rarely, if it causes frequent problems you'll get frequent benefits.
The Redemption paladin is actually a character I DM'd for (if briefly), Pang. The two of us worked out her redemption arc after her zeal as an Oath of Glory paladin caused her to abandon the party for reasons of Being A D&D Party (redneck womanizer dwarf and cannibalistic lizardman turned out to Offend Divine Sensibilities). We worked out her return to the party and change of Oaths later. The rule was that any time she killed a humanoid or other sapient being (other than demons/devils/undead/Acceptable Paladin Targets), she had to spend one hour of time carving a prayer bead for that person, as soon after the act as she could. She could continue fighting if a fight was breaking out and see to the wounds of her allies in the immediate aftermath of a fight, but the general idea was that she could not begin a long rest without carving beads if she had beads to carve. If that meant skipping a long rest because she'd done poorly and had too many beads to carve? That's the price of her new path.
The game didn't last long enough past this point for me to really dig into it, and this was done for other reasons so there were no bonus character points, but I trusted this specific player to not only take the time to carve when it came up, but to play the paladin as doing everything in her power to avoid slaughter. It does indeed take more effort and adjudication to work up real flaws like that, but it's also worth it when it's feasible.
@Pantagruel:
By-the-book Inspiration is a terrible bloody piece of design. Terrible. Sadly I haven't figured out a proper way to fix it yet. You have a point in that a system which 'rewards' playing into your flaws is self-regulating, but it's also a perverse incentive - it encourages players to fish for that Inspiration bonus by shoving their 'flaw' around. A DM can ride herd on that, but a lot of players get upset when rewards for "roleplaying" are arbitrary and they can't just push button A to receive bonus B. Good players know the difference between playing their character and being an oaf fishing for bonuses they don't merit, but it takes time for a player to learn those skills.
And frankly, even mediocre players deserve to be able to play a game of D&D. Just means the DM has to run the game differently, and know what they're in for.
Please do not contact or message me.
Inspiration appears to be someone seeing mechanics in other systems (e.g. Aspects in FATE) and doing a poor job rolling their own variant. The simplest fix is probably to just steal from some other game and express the mechanical benefits in D&D terms. As a minimal adjustment, I would probably make inspiration a reroll instead of advantage, but I would trigger earning them on being actually disadvantaged.
I got plenty of experience with flaws from Legend of the Five Rings. It's an official part of character creation in that game. I don't mind the extra work at all, nor do I begrudge the player their advantage (it's typically an easy hook, so really a boon for the GM), but depending on how well GM and player understand each other it can be a point of contention too. Not making any claims about my personal GMing qualities, but especially for a GM who's inexperienced and/or has inexperienced players it can be a troublesome mechanic. Kind of a high risk/high reward sort of thing. That's why it might sometimes be better (or at least less contentious) not to make it too much of a quid pro quo thing. If everyone gets a character flaw it just becomes part of the game, for instance.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I find point buy to be absolutely superior to every other rolling system. It enforced linear fairness across the board.
I don’t buy the whole “well then my character is too similar to another character if we do this!”
1) stats don’t a role player make. If your only way of making a character unique is to role play high strength and low intelligence, then I’ll coach the player through their background, help them craft a story, etc.
2) how many campaigns have the exact same type of character in them? Two EK Fighters, both Dex based? Unlikely
Next, “But my hero should be powerful, not mediocre!”
1) a fallacy - heroism is relative. I play in a campaign where we rolled stats and have extra Feats - guess what, we are all 20s across the board in all the stats that we want... and I’ve never felt so mediocre in a campaign before.
2) heroism is also a state of character and campaign. Stats don’t make a role player and they don’t make heroes either. Having 20 strength doesn’t make you a hero. Neither does a 4 in intelligence. The story makes you a hero.
3) If your intention is to feel like a hero compared to your allies who rolled worse, then you’re just a selfish human. Wanting to start off mechanically better than your allies to feed some ego trip is also not a good formula for a good game.
Then to counteract these stats people come up with the idea of “flaws”...
1) Play any all the flaws you want. Why do you need it codified in the rules? Why are we creating mechanics for something that you can entirely roleplay? Do you get advantages then for choosing a flaw? How twisted is that, that you need to balance it somehow so you can play a character?
2) any time there’s a flaws system, the same guy that wants all the best stats will also choose the best flaw to combine with their mechanical advantage that again... feeds their ego of being better than their companions.
I see far too many times where people base an entire way of playing because of their stats. When was the last time you took a Feat instead of maxing out your primary star? You have SO MANY opportunities to give your character statistical flaws but constantly choose against it, then some will come here and get upset that point buy is too “cookie cutter”
In my opinion, if a simple fair stat buying system is too homogenous, then you’re playing the game wrong. Take lower stats. Don’t spend all your points then. Make yourself weaker than your allies so THEY can feel like heroes. Yeah. I didn’t think so.
The number of people in here wanting a mechanical benefit to just playing their character is unreal. How did this game turn into rat-push-button-get-food-roleplay instead of just roleplay? Why is everything linked to some mechanism? Is this why people get upset with D&D nowadays, because it doesn’t properly reward you for every little nuance that you want to do and therefore you don’t do it?
I am stunned. If a PC in my game wanted to roleplay a serious flaw, I let them. I don’t give them fancy cookies for it - that sets a precedent that roleplay is supposed to give you some kind of advantage with the DM. Roleplay advances the story and creates amazing scenes in D&D, it’s not some free points for stats scheme.
Edit: for clarity, I DM/play 2-3 times a week, and nobody I play with has issues playing flawed characters. We all create characters with heroic tendencies and great limitations, with literally zero expectation of some kind of mechanical benefit because of it. None of us have even asked or expected such a thing from a DM. Inspiration is literally like a tiny chocolate chip we get to chew on once in a while, and that’s all we would ever need. The roleplay is its own reward.