Talk:Slightly Hands (3.5e Flaw)

Adverb Hands
What's up with the weird name choice? Also, not a penalty for primary non-weapon users (that is, casters, basically) to get a free feat. --Ganteka Future (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It began as pun/typo of Sleight of Hand, and went from there.


 * Can't entirely help the latter part, but I know about it. I give some wiggle room for flaws because things like Noncombatant (-2 melee) on a caster or Slow (1/2 spd) on a mounted built... it's hard/impossible to cover everyone, but fortunately flaws usually come with the unspoken "DM Permission" rule.


 * The best use which would probably pass DM mustard, using it on a finesse weapon user, or a weapon user who relies entirely on the Strength part of the damage. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Man, that's such a cop-out. "Because printed material designed it poorly" is not an excuse for you to design poorly. What if a sorceress wants tiny hands as a flaw? Perhaps consider an additional caster-kinda-thing, like some somatic spell failure percent chance (because tiny hands, and covers UMD characters too). --Ganteka Future (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Its not meant as a cop-out, only as acknowledging a (possibly fatal) flaw in... well, flaws. It is extremely hard to impossible to develop flaws which cover all cases.  Since the introduction of flaws in a campaign is DM dependent not being part of the normal rules, I feel a bit safer to say there is a little above average bit of DM control on what flaws can and cannot past the mustard.  Now, if its TOO focused, certainly I think its worth looking into expanding.  A flaw which hits only ranged attackers using shuriken at nighttime if they happen to be drunk would be a terrible flaw.  Something that covers a fair amount of people (people who use weapons and want damage) I think is enough.  Do you not agree?


 * I'll think of the spell failure thing. I'm not sure I can justify that one, but maybe something. -- Eiji-kun (talk) 10:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I suppose I'll preface this by saying that I dislike Flaws. Not because of the concept (being able to have a drawback the DM can use as a counter as a trade-off for an ability or boost is cool), but because their execution often lacked or failed to meet that goal. Now, everything allowed in any particular game is up to the DM on whether it is allowed or not. Variant rules default to "no", so there's a bit more control. That said, not every DM reviews each of his player's sheets for every chosen ability... or read every Flaw available to his players before-hand, trusting in his players or just not knowing any better because he assumes they'll work. So, if Flaws are allowed, this could cause problems (in getting a character a feat without much tangible drawback) as written. That's the beef I've got with this. Easiest solution: Add a prerequisite of some kind. Harder solution: Re-design it to cover a broader spectrum of character-types. Worst solution: Do nothing because "it's okay to make exploitable material that has to be approved on an individual basis because design is difficult"... which isn't okay, so don't do that. I'm pushing this because I don't want to see you fall into a pattern of lazy game design. We've got the chance as homebrewers to write material that's better than printed material, and I think we should strive for that. --Ganteka Future (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)