From D&D Wiki
 Magical Hydrophobia
- Because it's an article related to Hydrophobia, like an increased severity, but different enough that it has it's own article--Cypresslyshra 20:15, 5 February 2007 (MST)
- It should not be indented. Indented feats are ones that follow chains, one after the next. If they are related the table does not have a good way to show this; sorry. See the PHB for more information (their Feat table). --Green Dragon 20:25, 5 February 2007 (MST)
- Ah, never mind then, I shall simply put it into the chart normally--Cypresslyshra 20:29, 5 February 2007 (MST)
- Looks better, thanks for doing that. --Green Dragon 19:19, 7 February 2007 (MST)
 Greedy is not Being Added
Is anyone going to add Greedy or should it be deleted from this list? --Green Dragon 22:09, 12 March 2007 (MDT)
- It's not mine, I'm afraid. I actually don't know who added it--Cypresslyshra 00:37, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
- Hmm...Well, it sounds like a mental version of kepltomania, except I can't figure how to swing that. So, unless I come up with something else, I'll just remove it.--Cypresslyshra 17:47, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
- Okay. --Green Dragon 18:30, 13 March 2007 (MDT)
- Discussion moved to Talk:Pyrophobia (DnD Flaw)#Defeated
 Specific Phobias
There are alot of "specific phobias" here, but it would be far more interesting (and difficult) from a role playing perspective to have full fledged anxiety disorders here such as panic disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, social anxiety disorder, agoraphobia, generalized anxiety, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 5 December 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
- Feel free to make them and add them here. D&D Wiki is based around users submitting their own content, so if you have a good idea for a flaw please make it and add it! --Green Dragon 18:50, 5 December 2007 (MST)
- How do you recommend we organize this page then? Maybe two pages, one for flaws and the other for traits, or should we just add another entry to the table stating which they are? --Green Dragon 23:17, 10 February 2008 (MST)
- I second on the making a DnD Traits page. I like flaws, they're so cool! I'd even help if you didn't mind. --Penske 18:43, 11 February 2008 (MST)
 Creating a New Flaw
you should put a link to a page that helps you make a flaw, like the one in the homebrew classes. I don't really know how to make a page without that link... --Xdeletedx 01:17, 25 February 2008 (MST)
- Nevermind --Xdeletedx 03:30, 25 February 2008 (MST)
- No, I agree with you—we should. If anyone has extra time please feel free to make a preload, and add a 'Add your own flaw" section. --Green Dragon 00:24, 26 February 2008 (MST)
- I have made a form that does it. Let me know what you think. --Green Dragon 02:09, 17 March 2008 (MDT)
- Sorry for the uber late response. It's AWESOME! XD --Xdeletedx 20:49, 19 July 2008 (MDT)
 DC Changes
Hey, haven't been on in a long time since my D&D group disbanded, but we're starting up again. I want to suggest that a lot of the DC saves for these flaws be changed to 25 or something (and since a lot of these flaws are mine)...Well? --Penske 21:22, 12 September 2008 (MDT)
 Official Flaw Policy
We need one, badly. Roleplaying only flaw are against the rule given in UA.
You can create new flaws, but be careful: Flaws can unbalance your game. When creating flaws, keep a few issues in mind:
|—Unearthed Arcana, Character Flaws|
I think it clean enough, it should be the official D&D Wiki policy on flaw. Otherwise it not a flaw, it something else. If a DM want to give a free feat for nothing then it his choice, it could even be a variant rule for all I care. DnD Flaw should be reserved only for UA-conform flaws. This question need to be cleared once and for all. --Lord Dhazriel 19:40, 19 March 2009 (MDT)
- I agree with Lord Dhazriel on this here. We're getting a lot of complaints about them and arguments from what I can see, and we need some sort of a policy in order to keep order around here. Things that don't meet the requirements could be dealt with, maybe given a timeframe to be adjusted during. --Harry Mason 19:45, 19 March 2009 (MDT)
- Roleplaying Flaws only unbalance your game if your DM is inexperienced. With a little logic and creative thought, roleplaying flaws become the inspiration for countless scenes or both sadness and mirth. Let them stay, if you don't want them then just make a House Rule against them in your own personal game. Don't ruin it for the rest of us. (THEM 23:02, 19 March 2009 (MDT))
- There's this bit where they have an entirely unquantifiable effect, and also don't even follow the UA rules for flaws. You say taking them out "ruins it for the rest of us". I say leaving them in ruins it for the rest of us, all of us users who want to be able to come to D&D Wiki and find quality, usable material without needing to wade through mounds and mounds of utter crap. Surgo 23:39, 19 March 2009 (MDT)
- Why you need a feat for pure roleplaying, when I play a jerkass I don't get a free feat. You see roleplaying is an important part of the game, it shouldn't be touched mechanically. Roleplaying Flaws cross the line, you gain a free feat for roleplaying a jerkass (or really another things). Traits fit the bill much better, although you do not need mechanical benefit for a storyline or roleplaying effect. I doesn't mean you shouldn't roleplay your flaws, but flaws shouldn't force you. If I play a outlaw, an hunted one a despited one. Why should I get a feat? Flaw as presented in UA is rather: "I ma blind of one eye, but I swing sword better than anyone else.". Traits fit the bill nicely when it come to character presonality. Sorry if anything make no sense, it late so I might mess up my sentences and/or text. --Lord Dhazriel 23:50, 19 March 2009 (MDT)
- If you actually took the 15 seconds to read what I typed you'll see "if you don't want them then just make a House Rule against them in your own personal game." Don't try to delete them like Surgo is doing. (THEM 00:08, 20 March 2009 (MDT))
- I took the 15 second mind you. Also as an administrator it my duty to clean up things who aren't conform to standards. These standards are getting discussed right now. I might add, we should separate both the flaws who are correct and conform to the standard given in UA and the Roleplaying Flaws. In all seriousness, when I play my game I alway look into the wiki. And when it come to flaws, it a mess Surgo simply took a needed initiative, these flaws are getting attentions. As I said earlier, it okay if they are not deleted, but they don't belong in DnD Flaw. DnD Flaw is made for flaw conforming to UA. And roleplaying flaws do not. I won't mind if another section is being made for them, I just won't bother searching through it. --Lord Dhazriel 00:23, 20 March 2009 (MDT)
- I was just gonna type up something (again) about just using the Character Flaws (DnD Variant Rule), but honestly, that needs to be rewritten and cleaned up. Though, a new category is in order for those flaws that have something other than 1 Bonus Feat as the Benefit. In addition, Roleplaying Flaws don't work, at least not the way the authors have intended them to. Writing homebrew material is difficult and requires a lot of consideration (and preferably playtesting), but sadly, a lot of material is just stuff people come up with on a whim without considering the consequences or reflecting on it again at a later date. It authors did think through, read the rules about what they were trying to create, examine it, get feedback from other games, I wouldn't have to leave this comment right now. Yes, we do need a [[Category:Variant Flaw]] for those feats that don't conform to the standard UA Flaw rules. Though, the variant system is broken and in need of some wiki lovin'. Also bear in mind that the Delete Template doesn't mean the article is gonna get deleted. We have responsible Sysops who look over articles to see if they are being worked upon. In many cases, a Delete Template hopefully results in an Adoption by an author willing to fix the article and make it playable, well written and interesting. Which brings me to Roleplaying Flaws... a concept which continually irritates me. I've said it elsewhere and don't wish to repeat it again. Though, a basic transcript of the general feeling of emotions on this topic can be found at the Hunted (now a trait) talk page. I guess that's all I have for now. --Ganteka 01:10, 20 March 2009 (MDT)
- Also, just remembered. Using the argument that it is the DM's responsibility of whether to allow the flaw (or any other homebrew material) or not because of how it would work in the game is not a valid argument, even though the same argument has popped up again and again. It is not the responsibility of the DM (regardless if he is a practiced DM or inexperienced one) to ensure the article is used properly. It is the responsibility of the author that the article is capable of being used regardless of the level of DM. A bad DM might not know he's bad and allow poorly written material into his game (that is potentially unbalancing, though, a single feat might not seem like much, it can mean a lot, especially if there is no downside). A good DM would probably recognize a poorly made article and wouldn't allow it. So really, it helps no one to leave it to the DM. Roleplaying Flaws just don't work. They should either be Traits or just character flavor (without the benefit of a bonus feat). --Ganteka 01:26, 20 March 2009 (MDT)
- I say we should just change all the flaws which do not conform to the UA flaw rules into traits (if they work as such) or add them to a separate, differently named, section. Flaws are simply anti-feats. Where feats take a feat away, flaws give one. Where feats give abilities, flaws take them away. Calling a non-anti-feat a flaw just does not seem to make sense to me. Instead of having "UA-Style Flaws", "Variant Flaws", and "Traits", why not just keep it as "Flaws", "Traits", and if needed something like "Character Detriments" or just "Detriments"? --Green Dragon 12:35, 24 March 2009 (MDT)
- I like that idea far more than "variant flaws". Surgo 12:58, 24 March 2009 (MDT)
- Me too, so let agreed we need to change all non-UA conform flaws to be conform to UA? --Lord Dhazriel 18:50, 28 March 2009 (MDT)
- IF you must separate them out, then make a Variant Flaw section. That way the flaws that don't follow your set of rules won't require any editing, just a simple move. (THEM 03:45, 30 March 2009 (MDT))
→Reverted indentation to one colon
- I believe that we should have a role-playing suggestions section, that way flaws that don't have a full rule can be added (and so can other suggestions). --Sabre070 03:22, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- Whatever. As long as it specifically says on the page "These flaws are unquantifiable." And it's the "roleplaying" flaws that get moved there, not the pathetically weak ones that actually attempt to follow UA. And things that are actually flaws, not traits masquerading as a different name (as a lot of the so-called flaws are/were.) Surgo 09:57, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- I'll make the new section at the end of the day, if there's no argument. I'll call it "3.5e Unquantifiable Flaws" and move all flaws that are, well, unquantifiable and candidates for deletion over there and strip out the deletion template. I won't move anything that isn't actually a flaw (provides a bonus feat) and is instead a trait masquerading as a flaw. Surgo 10:28, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- I changed my mind. I say we should just delete them or make them conform to the UA flaw rules/change them into traits. Let's be honest with ourselves — no one can use unquantifiable flaws. They are impossible to balance, and a few other issues arise. I say if the idea behind it is good then someone needs to adopt it and save it from deletion, and if not then deletion it the way to go. Yes, we would be deleting someone's idea, and maybe someone could add a little flavor to their character with that idea, but overall having things which have a variable balance with each and every game present on D&D Wiki will just make the overall quality worse. --Green Dragon 11:57, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- As I think everyone here can guess, I completely and 100% agree with what you just said. Surgo 12:36, 30 March 2009 (MDT)
- So, what's the timeframe for the original creators of unquantifiable flaws to have them changed, or else they get deleted? It's only fair to give them a chance to adjust their ideas.--Fathirian Hound 03:14, 31 March 2009 (MDT)
- I think for all the flaws I nominated, the original creators have not been around for over a year, with the exception of Penske who checked in 5 months ago. The flaws themselves have been on the candidates for deletion for almost a month at this point -- that's quite a lot of time. Surgo 11:03, 31 March 2009 (MDT)
- Fair enough, but I think an official timeframe would be better for fairness, it would also prevent whiners complaining that they hadn't been given enough time.--Fathirian Hound 02:47, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
- Maybe just have a role-playing ideas list in DnD Other, that way we both get what we want 1) flaws and traits that follow the system and 2) a list of flaws and traits that don't have any rules associated with them. --Sabre070 03:03, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
- I think the idea of having them as ideas for character flavour was good. It would give new players a good starting point when creating a character and DM's could use it for creating NPC's on the fly. Pick a quirk and slap it down, with no changes required to the stat block.--Fathirian Hound 08:18, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
- We're actually past the official delete timeframe of 2 weeks by a significant margin. Also, Lord Dhazriel copied all the "roleplaying flaws" to some article in DnD Other (name escapes me). Surgo 08:32, 1 April 2009 (MDT)
 How many is too many?
So I, like most other people on this site, LOVE the idea of flaws. Thus far I've not come across a general guideline for how many flaws to allow to a person/party. I feel that one flaw and one trait might be the best suggestion for this, but I wonder what some other thoughts are. Is there maybe a page on how to best implement flaws and traits that I've not come across yet? --Badger 23:09, 25 July 2009 (MDT)
- Generally, 2 flaws is the maximum set by the rules, and is a good standard from my experience using them. --Ghostwheel 23:11, 25 July 2009 (MDT)
- Zero flaws is best. They're basically written to make characters less versatile (and thus, less interesting) while giving them flat-out power raises. In most cases, they're no real loss and are badly unbalanced. Dragon Child 23:13, 25 July 2009 (MDT)
- Rather than as something for roleplaying or for versatility (since the way to get a character who's "good" in D&D is to hyperspecialize), I see flaws as a mechanical addition to the game. From a design/metagame point of view, one can see that when D&D 3.5 was first published, there were so few feats out there that few feats were needed over the course of 20 levels. However, as the game grew, people needed more and more feats. Thus, the designers put out flaws to give people the extra little "umph" they needed. Another good thing about flaws is that feats are most often needed by meleers, who are for the most part easily outclassed by casters. (For example, a charger needs Leap Attack, Power Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Improved Sunder, and Combat Brute. A wizard just needs to cast Glitterdust.) Thus, the addition of flaws helps give fighter-types a much-needed boost in power while not affecting the casters too much. After all, the Druid for example needs only Natural Spell at level 6. Two extra flaws at 1st level aren't going to change his power level much. (Adapted from another page, but pertinent in my mind.) --Ghostwheel 23:15, 25 July 2009 (MDT)
 Flaw Form
I tried to add a flaw but I must have made an error in the code somewhere. Do I have to manually add it to the list? Or is there a wait? The page is Berry Picker. (I know part of the problem is the URL does not have the _(3.5_Flaw it is supposed to have at the end, but i cannot get back to that page to fix it). 220.127.116.11 01:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- When D&D Wiki was upgraded earlier this year Semantic MediaWiki had some problems, with regard to most of it. The main Semantic setup things now work with the next MediaWiki upgrade which happened, such as 3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells. The forms's (those in the Form namespace), however, can no longer be found using MediaWiki. When did this happen? When D&D Wiki was upgraded earlier this year. Where are they? They can be found through the backend. Can the be recovered? Yes, however through the database problems and then hosting, it has yet to be done. It will be done soon, however, and then this problem will be resolved. I ended up seeing a page in the form namespace through the terminal, and the page info could easily be copied. The problem, however, is that the editing history needs to be present. As such they need to be recovered. --Green Dragon 02:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- When is this going to be fixed? --Axl 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Aren't the flaws supposed to be links, not just the name+ summary?
- Experiencing the same problem as our fellow with "Berry Picker" but i have seen no solid answer to how it has been or is handled.
- --Kaynin 11:53, 10 August, 2010 (EST)
- Experiencing the same problem as our fellow with "Berry Picker" but i have seen no solid answer to how it has been or is handled.
- They can still be accessed and I added some back (without the correct history though). For example Form:3.5e Quest, and the history shows where it is from. Interesting the edits are still present in one's user contributions. The ones which had preloads added in their place I did not add back, as the preloads were deemed better (for understanding and improving purposes). Of course the histoy needs to be corrected. --Green Dragon 15:29, 9 June 2011 (MDT)
 Page doesn't update automatically
I've found that this page doesn't appear to update automatically. I had to edit the page and save it (Although without changing anything) before flaws that I had created appeared, for some reason. Jwguy 11:48, 31 July 2011 (MDT)
- In your preferences → Appearance is "Disable browser page caching" checked or unchecked? Checking it will make all dpl, SMW, etc pages newly rendered each time you visit them. --Green Dragon 14:44, 7 August 2011 (MDT)
 Dense Skeleton in wrong section
Sorry, I just created the "Dense Skeleton" Flaw, then realised it should probably be a trait. Not sure how to move it over, could someone help?
- First move the page (top tab) to say "(3.5e Trait)" after the name. Then, use 3.5e Trait Preload to override the current layout of the page. If you do everything correctly, the page will be a trait. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2012 (MDT)
 Adding Flaws
I am new to posting pages. I posted a character flaw, but I don't know how to create a link to it on the character flaw list. Can anyone advise me on how to do so?
 To be templated
How to help:
- Pick a page from the list above.
- If it does not satisfy the guidelines at UA:Character Flaws, fix it or nominate it for deletion.
- Edit it to use Template:3.5e Flaw.
- The assumed benefit for a Flaw is a bonus feat with no prerequisite. Remove the prerequisite and benefit fields if they are not different from this.
Thanks, 18.104.22.168 08:00, 30 January 2013 (MST)