D&D (in every incarnation), Pathfinder and other System Games

[Black Howling]

Here's a Pathfinder specific topic.

Wizards and Sorcerers.  Is one superior to the other?  Have you ever role-played one as being all arrogantly superior to the others?  I've played Wizards who were convinced that Sorcerers were second class magic users.

"Of course Wizards are better!  Not only do we have a far wider variety of spells we can cast, but honestly... we actually had to work for our magic.  We had to research and devote our entire lives to becoming the arcane gods that we are today.  Not like Sorcerers... no, they just get their magic without any work.  It just comes to them.  They're like the grasshopper and we're the ant, only for some reason their laziness still nets them an arcane reward.  How fair is that?"

On D&D 3.5, certainly! The wizard trumps the sorcerer. On pathfinder, I'd say they are pretty even. Neither seems superior, though definitely excelling in different areas.

And I often play it that way. From both angles. The sorcerer often thinks the wizard unnaturally haggled his magic, while the wizard feels the sorcerer is too out of control and lazy.

[Healergirl]

On this whole flaws thing.  Not using them against the players who pick them, well, that's the GM's fault.  When I Gmed, I made a point of creating situations where character chosen feats came into play, no matter what the feat was.  That's the Gm's job.

Flaws, those came into use after I stopped Playing D&D for a while.  But I guarantee you that if any mage took the -2 to melee attacks flaw in MY game, that character would be in hand to hand combat with alarming frequency.  Perhaps with nothing better to use than a broken butterknife.

The barbarian with -2 to ranged attacks?  Well, those pesky slingers are slowly pounding said barbarian to pulp from the other side of the ravine he is free climbing.

There are ways.  There always are ways.

[Black Howling]

On this whole flaws thing.  Not using them against the players who pick them, well, that's the GM's fault.  When I Gmed, I made a point of creating situations where character chosen feats came into play, no matter what the feat was.  That's the Gm's job.

Flaws, those came into use after I stopped Playing D&D for a while.  But I guarantee you that if any mage took the -2 to melee attacks flaw in MY game, that character would be in hand to hand combat with alarming frequency.  Perhaps with nothing better to use than a broken butterknife.

The barbarian with -2 to ranged attacks?  Well, those pesky slingers are slowly pounding said barbarian to pulp from the other side of the ravine he is free climbing.

There are ways.  There always are ways.

I would agree on making sure they pay for them, but if you press it too hard you basically just kill the players. I know from experience on that issue. It's why the flaws should have been roleplay based with actual consequences.  Though again, that's why my group just stopped using them, since they aren't necessary in the least. 

[Healergirl]

Oh, it requires a delicate touch.  you don't use every flaw every game. But when the characters were under construction, I would make perfectly clear that every flaw picked wod see the light of day at usually inconvenient times.

It strikes me the flaws are a GURPS influence.  GURPS requires a very different style of play than D&D, so I am doubtful about the whole Flaws thing to begin with.

[Black Howling]

Oh, it requires a delicate touch.  you don't use every flaw every game. But when the characters were under construction, I would make perfectly clear that every flaw picked wod see the light of day at usually inconvenient times.

It strikes me the flaws are a GURPS influence.  GURPS requires a very different style of play than D&D, so I am doubtful about the whole Flaws thing to begin with.

The disadvantages in GURPS really work out. They are typically things you are gonna play anyhow, you just now get points back for good roleplaying. Least that is how I viewed it, dismissing the multiple minmaxing I have seen from it. Of course, that always ends up badly. ;) And as someone that has played D&D games with flaws, they are really hard to balance out since all of them are combat based. If you press just a little too hard, the feat is utterly useless and the player just ends up with the a stick. Go too light, and they have a free feat.

[LunarSage]

Incidentally, with the new Harry Potter movie out and all I thought I'd share this classic strip from Order of the Stick that made me laugh my ass off.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/oots0253.gif

[TheGlyphstone]

The point isn't a GM not using them against the players. The point is players picking flaws with little to not actual effect, because it impacts something they can't really be any worse at to begin with (Wizards are awful in melee no matter what, another -2 isn't going to actually hurt him much; if the Barbarian is climbing, he can't fight at range anyways). It's best, as BH said, to just ban them entirely, because either they're free power with no real penalty, or you go out of your way to 'punish' the player and end up causing bad blood for no gain except a sense of superiority.


Lunar, dead link. You should probably just give a URL link to the strip in question (and I think I know which one it is).

[LunarSage]

Huh.  It worked on my page.  Ah well.  Link it is.  Very funny strip too.

The point isn't a GM not using them against the players. The point is players picking flaws with little to not actual effect, because it impacts something they can't really be any worse at to begin with (Wizards are awful in melee no matter what, another -2 isn't going to actually hurt him much; if the Barbarian is climbing, he can't fight at range anyways). It's best, as BH said, to just ban them entirely, because either they're free power with no real penalty, or you go out of your way to 'punish' the player and end up causing bad blood for no gain except a sense of superiority.

I choose a crippling phobia of kumquats!  >.>

The scary thing is, I actually saw someone take that flaw in an oWoD game.  It was stupid because everyone knew it would never come up in game.

[Healergirl]

Lunarsage,

As a Gm, I would meet that challenge.

[LunarSage]

Just out of curiosity, how would you have it come up without it seeming forced?

[Black Howling]

Just out of curiosity, how would you have it come up without it seeming forced?

Especially if it was Vampire, they aren't gonna get near enough to it to do anything. They don't eat, and forcing it would really kill the storytelling.

[Alucarddalv]

simple you have some random npc come up and ask if the players would like to buy some....

[Black Howling]

simple you have some random npc come up and ask if the players would like to buy some....

Why did I just get the picture of a strange Nosferatu walking up all creepy like, leaning forward toward the others and saying. "Would you like to buy some kumquats?" >_>

[TheGlyphstone]

simple you have some random npc come up and ask if the players would like to buy some....

And that's not forced? Assuming they're playing in the standard setting, you don't exactly have random kumquat merchants wandering city streets at night.

[Black Howling]

And that's not forced? Assuming they're playing in the standard setting, you don't exactly have random kumquat merchants wandering city streets at night.

Sorta the point I was subtly making.

[Alucarddalv]

hey maybe they are out at a restaurant and the special is something involving kumquats.....

[TheGlyphstone]

hey maybe they are out at a restaurant and the special is something involving kumquats.....

...vampires don't eat.

Really, the solution in this case is the ST slapping the player upside the head and saying 'NO'.

[Alucarddalv]

Just because they don't have to eat doesn't mean they wouldn't be in a restaurant looking for a bite.....

[Healergirl]

I wouldn't worry about whether it seemed forced.  I would have given the player a pointed lecture during character creation about abusing the system, if the player proceeded, with that silly phobia, I would make sure it came into play with no other reason than "You picked it, live or die with it."   But I would not allow something that foolish to be picked to begin with.  If the player chose to be an ass about it, I would simply say "Find another GM>"

[TheGlyphstone]

On the other hand, games where the player takes a ridiculous phobia like that, suffers as a result, and gleefully runs with it can make for great stories.

(and for this particular example, he has to - WoD only awards bonus XP when a flaw causes you problems).

[LunarSage]

Not in Old WoD.

[TheGlyphstone]

Really? Huh. Well, chalk that up as another thing I like about NWoD then.

[Black Howling]

Really? Huh. Well, chalk that up as another thing I like about NWoD then.

I agree. ;) Seems like I am doing that a lot today.

[Callie Del Noire]

Not in Old WoD.

I did. Of course I also quashed 'silly flaws', yes even with the Malk.. who turned out, despite his delusional state, to be a very effective fighter. (he was a graffiti artist..in one show down he pulled out a lighter and spray paint on the Anarch thug threatening them.. rolled FIVE 10s.. if RIP hadn't had the 9 lives merit.. would have been a very short game with her as the foe)

[Kunoichi]

Hmm.  Well, since everyone's position on flaws are clear, what does everyone think of other options from Unearthed Arcana, like traits, or LA buyoff?