Talk:Monologuer (3.5e Flaw)

A standard action?!
That's quite a serious cost for a flaw at many balance points. What's wrong with just needing to monologue for long enough that you can't surprise anyone? --Foxwarrior (talk) 04:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I've gone back and forth on the actual cost (it was originally a move action) but costly is the point of flaws. I've considered removing the thing about winning initiative as a bad thing too, since it's superfluous.  -- Eiji-kun (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Most flaws are only costly to the type of characters who don't take those flaws though. --Foxwarrior (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well that makes this a good flaw, doesn't it? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I dunno. I think my psychic talky flaw is a good flaw, and the only characters who would take it are harmed by it. But I'm having a hard time thinking of characters who would be harmed as little by Monologuer as psionic people are harmed by Speak Your Mind. A standard action is quite a lot.
 * And most flaws are less harmful than either of those, which makes it unlikely that a sensible person would select this over something else given the choice. Doesn't that make this flaw too much of a goody-two-shoes to go far in life? --Foxwarrior (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm with Eiji on this one. Most flaws are bad because they don't carry an actual cost to people who take them. The game should just give people 2 extra feats at first level and be done with it. But if you're using flaws, they should at least mean something to most characters. (I do that with the flaw I made, I think.) --Ghostwheel (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * They probably should mean something, and I'd welcome banning all the flaws that don't, but losing the most important standard action just means too much. The flaw you (Ghostwheel) made can be compared almost perfectly to this one, and this one is significantly harsher. --Foxwarrior (talk) 08:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to go back to the move action concept, and I was suggested by another that it could be move action monologue + non-offensive action which allows for buffs but not attacks. Anyway, I'll mull on it.  -- Eiji-kun (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * (EDIT: And it is done.) -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)