Talk:Idiotic (3.5e Flaw)
From Dungeons and Dragons Wiki
Ratings[edit]
|
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| Getting a -20 on a natural 1 generally does nothing. Few creatures that make attack rolls who aren't targeting touch AC have a high int than str. You can decide not to roll for most int-based things if you don't want to.
In short, the downsides do not justify a feat in any way. |
- An oppose come on. It not like it does NOTHING, a nat 1 can still happen on a skill check and on a opposed check (like bullrush you can get bummed). Also the -10 penalty to sense motive mean you will pretty much swallow whatever lie anyone cook up. Even one of these penalties are more flaws than the UA flaws. I seriously think your standard for flaw is a little too high, flaws like feat should not applies to every situations. I understand siliking a flaw that you think isn't enough of a penalty, but a outright 'Remove this from the wiki' tag seem a little much. --Leziad (talk) 13:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've said the same thing to the people rating this, but apparently people can oppose whatever they feel like :-/
- Sense motive doesn't actually do anything, because in the end, the PC's character can believe whatever the PC wants them do. It's just that this "flaw" has no actual penalty (and potentially quite a decent bonus) for a large swathe of characters who would take it. At that point, it's not a flaw, but would fit better as a trait. --Ghostwheel (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think this would be simpler if it just treated your intelligence and wisdom as though they were both 3, regardless of the actual score (unless it was lower). So you'd have a -4 penalty and no int/wis bonus, but you'd still be able to be a mage or cleric (with horrible save DCs) or have a handy set of skills. You're not very smart, but you're not full retard. LenKagetsu (talk) 13:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Maybe the skillpoints should be left alone. You already take a massive hit to multiple skills and DCs because of the -4 modifier. LenKagetsu (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I would put a 12 Int as a req, so people don't roll a 6 and then take this flaw virtually "for free". Also, are there any actual skills that people use often that are Int-based? If not, then removing this from affecting skill points again returns us to this flaw having no actual detrimental effect for a huge number of characters who would take it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- I believe the minimum you put in a skill with point buy is 8 (assuming rolled stat do weird and bad thing for balance), which is still a -4 to Int for everything except skill points per level. While one could say it a insufficient penalty it is still clearly a penalty, in fact much more than most UA flaws. --Leziad (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- So under the current version, if I was a rogue BBEG and readied an action to act right before the Frenzied Berserker, and told him, "Your friends are actually evil doppelgangers who want to kill you and you need to kill them in order to save your real friends" and rolled decently, would he be forced to choppy-chop his friends in half? --Ghostwheel (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- He'd still have a +10 modifier because of that being wayyyyy out there, I guess it should extend to homicidal actions as well. LenKagetsu (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
OW OW OW OW OW[edit]
"People with some brain can easily trick you in situations where they can easily hit you, creatures attacking you may add their intelligence modifier to attack roll against you." This is worth a full flaw on its own, wouldn't it be better to make it "may use their intelligence instead of their strength or dex"?Fluffykittens (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
