Talk:Special Attachment (3.5e Flaw)

Bad Flaw

 * 1) Be a tiefling
 * 2) Be a martial class
 * 3) Ignore the flaw
 * 4) Lose darkness
 * 5) Don't care

This flaw isn't a very good one, nor does it penalize all characters equally. --Ghostwheel 21:26, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * You can even pull this off as a sorcerer. You think a dagger is your magical weapon. No thief is (realistically) going to steal a mundane dagger off a sorcerer, and since he never uses it in combat, it'll never get sundered/broken/lost. This requires a DM to intentionally do something that makes no sense(have a thief steal a 2gp dagger rather than a 2500gp longsword, or a half-full spellbook) to have any penalty. Finally, any DM that does steal the sorcerer's dagger takes away ALL HIS POWER for a week. That's not balanced. No DM would do that to a spellcaster more than once, in which case you're getting a free feat for one bad encounter. --The Badger 21:43, May 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was originally going to have this flaw require the item be in your hand or worn on your person at all times and have loss or destruction result in a comatose state, but I thought I had enough of a reputation as a sadist as it was. Besides, I do like the idea of a magical being who refuses to accept his power is his own.--Teh Storm 05:53, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is pretty bad. I'd use a jock-strap myself, because you aren't going to lose that one, but there's plenty of stuff you can do. Also, please remember proper spelling and grammar in your articles. It's very important. Surgo 12:42, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have a rep for being a sadist. You have a rep for taking decent ideas and defending them with bad logic and arguments.--Tavis McCricket 17:24, May 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an idea. Make it required by your magic abilities like a divine focus, and you have to present it as part of every spell like said focus.  Of course, I don't think it's that much of a weakness to be worth a bonus feat, maybe a trait....  It keeps the spirit of the ability though. -- Eiji-kun 03:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)