I'm toying around with a new mechanic called The Power Trade.
In short, when making your character, you can choose to take on a specific weakness (determined by your race) in order to gain a feat. The weakness generally puts the Phantasy back in Fantasy Races.
A Fae creature would be vulnerable to damage from a metal source (the whole Fae are allergic to iron thing), or Goblinoids are vulnerable to thunder damage and music (from the Princess and the Goblin), etc. Maybe Dwarves would negate their proficiency bonus whenever they make a check using a Charisma skill.
Would you be willing to take this kind of weakness for an extra feat at level 1?
Edit: Just in case I wasn't clear, this weakness would be an option, not a requirement. Either you have no weakness and play as normal, or accept the weakness for a feat of your choice.
Tradeoffs are a neat idea as long as they are impactful in some way. IIRC, certain games like Godlike/Wild Talents used flaws to curb the cost of talent dice. I also recall certain abilities in some of the Fallout games came with some kind of detriment such as higher agility at the cost of weaker limbs.
The issue with allowing players to gain strength in exchange for taking on a quirk, weakness, drawback, or vulnerability is that when players do so and then take steps to mitigate the impact of their quirk/weakness/drawback/vulnerability, DMs lose their goddamned minds. All sorts of accusations start flying about how a player's breaking the spirit of the game and being a metagaming munchkin tryhard assbadger for doing what literally anyone with a potentially crippling vulnerability would do and trying to minimize its impact on their life. See Sunlight Sensitivity and the eternal struggle between DMs trying to enforce it and players trying to squirm out from under it.
If you're not willing to let your players find solutions to mitigate their weaknesses, and are only considering this system because you're anticipating slapping your players across the jowls with their weaknesses a dozen times a session? I recommend skipping the process. It's an alluring idea, but it just doesn't tend to work in practice. Not for D&D.
The Legend of the Five Rings RPG has advantages and disadvantages - you pay for the former with points during character creation, and you get points for the latter. It's neat in itself but very hard to balance properly and many players will try to game the system while many GMs feel duty bound to make the character suffer accordingly. As Yurei1453 points out, this can lead to contention. Lots of "I'll never take this disadvantage, the GM is going to make my life miserable for it" and "my players always take the same disadvantages because they know those won't really hurt in practice and that gives them essentially free points to make their character stronger". That said, I do really like to see meaningful flaws in my players' characters and flaws in my own characters are good opportunities for me. It's great when it does work out, just don't expect it all to fall into place on its own - especially since it's homebrew. Official mechanics don't get as much scrutiny as stuff the DM made up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The Legend of the Five Rings RPG has advantages and disadvantages - you pay for the former with points during character creation, and you get points for the latter. It's neat in itself but very hard to balance properly and many players will try to game the system while many GMs feel duty bound to make the character suffer accordingly. As Yurei1453 points out, this can lead to contention. Lots of "I'll never take this disadvantage, the GM is going to make my life miserable for it" and "my players always take the same disadvantages because they know those won't really hurt in practice and that gives them essentially free points to make their character stronger". That said, I do really like to see meaningful flaws in my players' characters and flaws in my own characters are good opportunities for me. It's great when it does work out, just don't expect it all to fall into place on its own - especially since it's homebrew. Official mechanics don't get as much scrutiny as stuff the DM made up.
L5R is great for this, but the idea is that the disadvantages you pick signal to the GM what kind of story you want. In the campaign I played in, I took the disadvantages for Sworn Enemy (my character's brother) and True Love (her brother's wife), because I wanted to face the challenges of a Messy Family Situation™. And when the plot was resolved, I spent the XP to get rid of Sworn Enemy.
Disadvantages are great, but only if they're meaningful. I think a GM shouldn't try to make players suffer for their disadvantages, but they should present challenges that are present for as long as the disadvantage is. Players should only take disadvantages if they actually want to have to deal with those challenges.
The Legend of the Five Rings RPG has advantages and disadvantages - you pay for the former with points during character creation, and you get points for the latter. It's neat in itself but very hard to balance properly and many players will try to game the system while many GMs feel duty bound to make the character suffer accordingly. As Yurei1453 points out, this can lead to contention. Lots of "I'll never take this disadvantage, the GM is going to make my life miserable for it" and "my players always take the same disadvantages because they know those won't really hurt in practice and that gives them essentially free points to make their character stronger". That said, I do really like to see meaningful flaws in my players' characters and flaws in my own characters are good opportunities for me. It's great when it does work out, just don't expect it all to fall into place on its own - especially since it's homebrew. Official mechanics don't get as much scrutiny as stuff the DM made up.
L5R is great for this, but the idea is that the disadvantages you pick signal to the GM what kind of story you want. In the campaign I played in, I took the disadvantages for Sworn Enemy (my character's brother) and True Love (her brother's wife), because I wanted to face the challenges of a Messy Family Situation™. And when the plot was resolved, I spent the XP to get rid of Sworn Enemy.
Disadvantages are great, but only if they're meaningful. I think a GM shouldn't try to make players suffer for their disadvantages, but they should present challenges that are present for as long as the disadvantage is. Players should only take disadvantages if they actually want to have to deal with those challenges.
L5R is great period (though I'm less of a fan of Fantasy Flight's version). ;) But you're right, if I wasn't clear enough on that: disadvantages can be a really good addition to a game. They're just tricky to pull off right.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
At the moment, it's all fairly straightforeward (more so than sunlight sensitivity).
Scandinavian Trolls are a playable race (Bjergtroll, Skoltroll, etc). At the moment, the weakness would be weakness to radiant damage, but I might throw in xd4 damage for each minute their head is exposed to direct sunlight. Have a hat that generally keeps your face in shadow? Congrats, you're fine.
This is similar to how a Fire Genasi would be weak to cold damage and would take xd4 damage for each minute they spend underwater.
For those "you're allergic" things, I think there'd be a specific ruling of, "You take damage the first time it happens and can't be harmed this way again for at least 1mn." So there's no lift and drop shenanigans... and in spirit, they should all be things the PC can live with. Allergy to metal wouldn't mean they can't hold a metal weapon or wear armour. They just take more damage from a common source when they get hit.
Lastly, I'm also thinking about an "Overcome Weakness" feat which gives a +1 to an ability and removed your weakness that isn't available until level 8.
At the moment, it's all fairly straightforeward (more so than sunlight sensitivity).
Scandinavian Trolls are a playable race (Bjergtroll, Skoltroll, etc). At the moment, the weakness would be weakness to radiant damage, but I might throw in xd4 damage for each minute their head is exposed to direct sunlight. Have a hat that generally keeps your face in shadow? Congrats, you're fine.
This is similar to how a Fire Genasi would be weak to cold damage and would take xd4 damage for each minute they spend underwater.
For those "you're allergic" things, I think there'd be a specific ruling of, "You take damage the first time it happens and can't be harmed this way again for at least 1mn." So there's no lift and drop shenanigans... and in spirit, they should all be things the PC can live with. Allergy to metal wouldn't mean they can't hold a metal weapon or wear armour. They just take more damage from a common source when they get hit.
Lastly, I'm also thinking about an "Overcome Weakness" feat which gives a +1 to an ability and removed your weakness that isn't available until level 8.
I would be very careful about making the weaknesses things like damage vulnerability, especially if it's to common sources like metal weapons. That's gonna one-shot a PC on a crit
If the tradeoff is for a feat, then use the existing feats to help balance out the weaknesses. Elemental Adept, for instance, lets you ignore resistance to one damage type (chosen from a small subset), but against creatures that didn't have resistance in the first place all it does is turn 1s on damage dice into 2s. Vulnerability to one of those types would be way, way more impactful than that
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think as others have said, this is ripe for min-maxing and will probably just amount to a straight buff unless you intentionally target the weaknesses, in which case it will feel like you're being a jerk.
If your goal is to inject these kinds of fantasy tropes into your world, I'd recommend you do so by way of monsters. You can make fae creatures that are vulnerable to iron or goblins that are vulnerable to music without ever touching PC mechanics. Have your players encounter these things in the world and it will feel more a part of the world than some mechanic they're abusing in character creation.
Worth noting that purely mechanical weaknesses such as "vulnerability to mundane weaponry" will engender purely mechanical responses, such as "I find ways to not take damage from mundane weaponry". Vulnerability is also a very big deal in 5e and enormously magnifies damage; anything with a hearty multiattack will rip through PCs like styrofoam standees if PCs are given vulnerability to mundane damage.
Note Saga's example, where the drawbacks taken directly tied into the character's narrative and offered roleplaying cues as much as they offered mechanical penalties. I'm currently playing a drow character that leans into the side intangibles of sunlight sensitivity, uses it as both a means of occasional comic relief ('haha lookit the funny ink elf having trouble with sunlight') and as a way of highlighting her specific, very esoteric origin. I don't try to unfairly dodge it, but I'm also not going to avoid a chance to deal with it or fight without being affected by it if I can because my particular drow is a trained combatant and she doesn't fight at disadvantage if she can not do that instead.
If you want 'Weaknesses' to be a meaningful part of your game, lean into story more than penalty.
The issue with allowing players to gain strength in exchange for taking on a quirk, weakness, drawback, or vulnerability is that when players do so and then take steps to mitigate the impact of their quirk/weakness/drawback/vulnerability, DMs lose their goddamned minds. All sorts of accusations start flying about how a player's breaking the spirit of the game and being a metagaming munchkin tryhard assbadger for doing what literally anyone with a potentially crippling vulnerability would do and trying to minimize its impact on their life. See Sunlight Sensitivity and the eternal struggle between DMs trying to enforce it and players trying to squirm out from under it.
If you're not willing to let your players find solutions to mitigate their weaknesses, and are only considering this system because you're anticipating slapping your players across the jowls with their weaknesses a dozen times a session? I recommend skipping the process. It's an alluring idea, but it just doesn't tend to work in practice. Not for D&D.
Really?!? I’ve never had that experience. There was (is?) a Merits & Flaws system in WoD and my GMs never reacted like that. Either I have been very lucky or you have played with some real nozzles. No wonder you’re so snarktastic my friend. •whistles•
...xd4 damage for each minute their head is exposed to direct sunlight. Have a hat that generally keeps your face in shadow? Congrats, you're fine.
That's my concern with this kind of system. If the weakness is trivially ignored, then it's pointless. That weakness is effectively "my character has to wear a hat or helmet"...that's not really going to balance Fey Touched which gives me teleportation, a free spell and a free use of each every day. On the other hand, you don't want it crippling or over imposing on the player because that causes problems too. I think that's why they are getting rid of negative traits - they end up just being neutered (playing Drow only when you won't be exposed to the Sun much in the campaign, being an example).
I really like the concept, but the weaknesses have to be very well done - to be simultaneously both meaningful and not restrictive. Sunlight sensitivity was bad because it was one or the other.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The issue with allowing players to gain strength in exchange for taking on a quirk, weakness, drawback, or vulnerability is that when players do so and then take steps to mitigate the impact of their quirk/weakness/drawback/vulnerability, DMs lose their goddamned minds. All sorts of accusations start flying about how a player's breaking the spirit of the game and being a metagaming munchkin tryhard assbadger for doing what literally anyone with a potentially crippling vulnerability would do and trying to minimize its impact on their life. See Sunlight Sensitivity and the eternal struggle between DMs trying to enforce it and players trying to squirm out from under it.
If you're not willing to let your players find solutions to mitigate their weaknesses, and are only considering this system because you're anticipating slapping your players across the jowls with their weaknesses a dozen times a session? I recommend skipping the process. It's an alluring idea, but it just doesn't tend to work in practice. Not for D&D.
Really?!? I’ve never had that experience. There was (is?) a Merits & Flaws system in WoD and my GMs never reacted like that. Either I have been very lucky or you have played with some real nozzles. No wonder you’re so snarktastic my friend. •whistles•
Yurei likes to spread it on thick. ;) I've gotten a similar impression from other posts though, so...
Anyway, I can confirm the implementation of flaws isn't always entirely copacetic from personal experience as well, though without tempers boiling over at least, and it's certainly a(nother) way for players to game the system and another needle to thread for DMs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yurei likes to spread it on thick. ;) I've gotten a similar impression from other posts though, so...
Oh, I’m well aware. Yurei and I have been friends for a few years. But I meant that even reading between those thick lines. ‘Rei’s had some unpleasant experiences that I find appalling to read about. Some folks is just 455 |-|0|_35. 🤷♂️
I mean, how many DMs find it super unfair for a drow character to take levels in classes that use saving throws instead of attack rolls?
"That's not fair! You're not playing it right! You're supposed to suck at fighting in sunlight, not use saving-throw stuff and ignore your weakness! DX" As if a drow adventurer who knows they're going to be spending a significant portion of their lives dealing with sunlight is somehow a lesser character for gravitating to methods that function to a reasonable extent while sun-addled. It's why I advise caution with purely mechanical drawbacks like SS or the aforementioned vulnerability. There's not much, if any, narrative backing at play with those, and a DM doesn't really have any business blaming most players for not inventing narrative backing for those traits and leaning into them. People willing to eat mechanical weaknesses like that without a care are much rarer than many DMs think.
Not one I've played with, fortunately, but I've seen those fights on other websites. Was a YT video in particular I caught a while back, some random flotsam in my feed talking about ways to handle SS for drow characters, and there was a raging ***** fight in the comments about how it was just not okay to dodge your species' weakness like that. "If they never use attack rolls they shouldn't get Superior Darkvision!" was one common refrain, which seems to completely ignore that disadvantage on Perception in strong sunlight sucks donkey and also, by RAW, tanks your passive score, too. The "Wisdom (Perception)" side of SS is not a freebie, but you couldn't tell it from that nonsense.
Not one I've played with, fortunately, but I've seen those fights on other websites. Was a YT video in particular I caught a while back, some random flotsam in my feed talking about ways to handle SS for drow characters, and there was a raging ***** fight in the comments about how it was just not okay to dodge your species' weakness like that. "If they never use attack rolls they shouldn't get Superior Darkvision!" was one common refrain, which seems to completely ignore that disadvantage on Perception in strong sunlight sucks donkey and also, by RAW, tanks your passive score, too. The "Wisdom (Perception)" side of SS is not a freebie, but you couldn't tell it from that nonsense.
I'm toying around with a new mechanic called The Power Trade.
In short, when making your character, you can choose to take on a specific weakness (determined by your race) in order to gain a feat. The weakness generally puts the Phantasy back in Fantasy Races.
A Fae creature would be vulnerable to damage from a metal source (the whole Fae are allergic to iron thing), or Goblinoids are vulnerable to thunder damage and music (from the Princess and the Goblin), etc. Maybe Dwarves would negate their proficiency bonus whenever they make a check using a Charisma skill.
Would you be willing to take this kind of weakness for an extra feat at level 1?
Edit: Just in case I wasn't clear, this weakness would be an option, not a requirement. Either you have no weakness and play as normal, or accept the weakness for a feat of your choice.
Tradeoffs are a neat idea as long as they are impactful in some way. IIRC, certain games like Godlike/Wild Talents used flaws to curb the cost of talent dice. I also recall certain abilities in some of the Fallout games came with some kind of detriment such as higher agility at the cost of weaker limbs.
The issue with allowing players to gain strength in exchange for taking on a quirk, weakness, drawback, or vulnerability is that when players do so and then take steps to mitigate the impact of their quirk/weakness/drawback/vulnerability, DMs lose their goddamned minds. All sorts of accusations start flying about how a player's breaking the spirit of the game and being a metagaming munchkin tryhard assbadger for doing what literally anyone with a potentially crippling vulnerability would do and trying to minimize its impact on their life. See Sunlight Sensitivity and the eternal struggle between DMs trying to enforce it and players trying to squirm out from under it.
If you're not willing to let your players find solutions to mitigate their weaknesses, and are only considering this system because you're anticipating slapping your players across the jowls with their weaknesses a dozen times a session? I recommend skipping the process. It's an alluring idea, but it just doesn't tend to work in practice. Not for D&D.
Please do not contact or message me.
The Legend of the Five Rings RPG has advantages and disadvantages - you pay for the former with points during character creation, and you get points for the latter. It's neat in itself but very hard to balance properly and many players will try to game the system while many GMs feel duty bound to make the character suffer accordingly. As Yurei1453 points out, this can lead to contention. Lots of "I'll never take this disadvantage, the GM is going to make my life miserable for it" and "my players always take the same disadvantages because they know those won't really hurt in practice and that gives them essentially free points to make their character stronger". That said, I do really like to see meaningful flaws in my players' characters and flaws in my own characters are good opportunities for me. It's great when it does work out, just don't expect it all to fall into place on its own - especially since it's homebrew. Official mechanics don't get as much scrutiny as stuff the DM made up.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
L5R is great for this, but the idea is that the disadvantages you pick signal to the GM what kind of story you want. In the campaign I played in, I took the disadvantages for Sworn Enemy (my character's brother) and True Love (her brother's wife), because I wanted to face the challenges of a Messy Family Situation™. And when the plot was resolved, I spent the XP to get rid of Sworn Enemy.
Disadvantages are great, but only if they're meaningful. I think a GM shouldn't try to make players suffer for their disadvantages, but they should present challenges that are present for as long as the disadvantage is. Players should only take disadvantages if they actually want to have to deal with those challenges.
L5R is great period (though I'm less of a fan of Fantasy Flight's version). ;) But you're right, if I wasn't clear enough on that: disadvantages can be a really good addition to a game. They're just tricky to pull off right.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Thanks for the input!
At the moment, it's all fairly straightforeward (more so than sunlight sensitivity).
Scandinavian Trolls are a playable race (Bjergtroll, Skoltroll, etc). At the moment, the weakness would be weakness to radiant damage, but I might throw in xd4 damage for each minute their head is exposed to direct sunlight. Have a hat that generally keeps your face in shadow? Congrats, you're fine.
This is similar to how a Fire Genasi would be weak to cold damage and would take xd4 damage for each minute they spend underwater.
For those "you're allergic" things, I think there'd be a specific ruling of, "You take damage the first time it happens and can't be harmed this way again for at least 1mn." So there's no lift and drop shenanigans... and in spirit, they should all be things the PC can live with. Allergy to metal wouldn't mean they can't hold a metal weapon or wear armour. They just take more damage from a common source when they get hit.
Lastly, I'm also thinking about an "Overcome Weakness" feat which gives a +1 to an ability and removed your weakness that isn't available until level 8.
I would be very careful about making the weaknesses things like damage vulnerability, especially if it's to common sources like metal weapons. That's gonna one-shot a PC on a crit
If the tradeoff is for a feat, then use the existing feats to help balance out the weaknesses. Elemental Adept, for instance, lets you ignore resistance to one damage type (chosen from a small subset), but against creatures that didn't have resistance in the first place all it does is turn 1s on damage dice into 2s. Vulnerability to one of those types would be way, way more impactful than that
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I think as others have said, this is ripe for min-maxing and will probably just amount to a straight buff unless you intentionally target the weaknesses, in which case it will feel like you're being a jerk.
If your goal is to inject these kinds of fantasy tropes into your world, I'd recommend you do so by way of monsters. You can make fae creatures that are vulnerable to iron or goblins that are vulnerable to music without ever touching PC mechanics. Have your players encounter these things in the world and it will feel more a part of the world than some mechanic they're abusing in character creation.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Worth noting that purely mechanical weaknesses such as "vulnerability to mundane weaponry" will engender purely mechanical responses, such as "I find ways to not take damage from mundane weaponry". Vulnerability is also a very big deal in 5e and enormously magnifies damage; anything with a hearty multiattack will rip through PCs like styrofoam standees if PCs are given vulnerability to mundane damage.
Note Saga's example, where the drawbacks taken directly tied into the character's narrative and offered roleplaying cues as much as they offered mechanical penalties. I'm currently playing a drow character that leans into the side intangibles of sunlight sensitivity, uses it as both a means of occasional comic relief ('haha lookit the funny ink elf having trouble with sunlight') and as a way of highlighting her specific, very esoteric origin. I don't try to unfairly dodge it, but I'm also not going to avoid a chance to deal with it or fight without being affected by it if I can because my particular drow is a trained combatant and she doesn't fight at disadvantage if she can not do that instead.
If you want 'Weaknesses' to be a meaningful part of your game, lean into story more than penalty.
Please do not contact or message me.
Really?!? I’ve never had that experience. There was (is?) a Merits & Flaws system in WoD and my GMs never reacted like that. Either I have been very lucky or you have played with some real nozzles. No wonder you’re so snarktastic my friend. •whistles•
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's my concern with this kind of system. If the weakness is trivially ignored, then it's pointless. That weakness is effectively "my character has to wear a hat or helmet"...that's not really going to balance Fey Touched which gives me teleportation, a free spell and a free use of each every day. On the other hand, you don't want it crippling or over imposing on the player because that causes problems too. I think that's why they are getting rid of negative traits - they end up just being neutered (playing Drow only when you won't be exposed to the Sun much in the campaign, being an example).
I really like the concept, but the weaknesses have to be very well done - to be simultaneously both meaningful and not restrictive. Sunlight sensitivity was bad because it was one or the other.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Yurei likes to spread it on thick. ;) I've gotten a similar impression from other posts though, so...
Anyway, I can confirm the implementation of flaws isn't always entirely copacetic from personal experience as well, though without tempers boiling over at least, and it's certainly a(nother) way for players to game the system and another needle to thread for DMs.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Oh, I’m well aware. Yurei and I have been friends for a few years. But I meant that even reading between those thick lines. ‘Rei’s had some unpleasant experiences that I find appalling to read about. Some folks is just 455 |-|0|_35. 🤷♂️
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I mean, how many DMs find it super unfair for a drow character to take levels in classes that use saving throws instead of attack rolls?
"That's not fair! You're not playing it right! You're supposed to suck at fighting in sunlight, not use saving-throw stuff and ignore your weakness! DX" As if a drow adventurer who knows they're going to be spending a significant portion of their lives dealing with sunlight is somehow a lesser character for gravitating to methods that function to a reasonable extent while sun-addled. It's why I advise caution with purely mechanical drawbacks like SS or the aforementioned vulnerability. There's not much, if any, narrative backing at play with those, and a DM doesn't really have any business blaming most players for not inventing narrative backing for those traits and leaning into them. People willing to eat mechanical weaknesses like that without a care are much rarer than many DMs think.
Please do not contact or message me.
I mean, I would say "none," but I have a feeling you've got a counterexample XD
Not one I've played with, fortunately, but I've seen those fights on other websites. Was a YT video in particular I caught a while back, some random flotsam in my feed talking about ways to handle SS for drow characters, and there was a raging ***** fight in the comments about how it was just not okay to dodge your species' weakness like that. "If they never use attack rolls they shouldn't get Superior Darkvision!" was one common refrain, which seems to completely ignore that disadvantage on Perception in strong sunlight sucks donkey and also, by RAW, tanks your passive score, too. The "Wisdom (Perception)" side of SS is not a freebie, but you couldn't tell it from that nonsense.
Please do not contact or message me.
🤦♂️
I weep for humanity.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I'm glad to hear it. :)
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].