Talk:Hunted (3.5e Trait)

Contents 1 Comments 2 Proposal for Deletion 3 Save the Article 4 My mini Edit War With Sam Kay 5 After Skimming the Discussions 6 Altering the flaw 7 Summation of Arguments and Possible Solutions

[edit] Comments

Any comments or suggestions can go in here. Flession 05:12, 8 April 2007 (MDT)

Suggestion. Maybe the Hunter can kidnap the hunted, or someone in their party, and make them face off the hunter in a position where the hunter has the upper hand. I.E. The hunter has summoned a powerful monster; the hunter has friends in the area; ect.

Also maybe the character with the trait should get +3 to all Dexterity rolls and Survival checks, as being hunted doesn't mean you can read people well.

[edit] Proposal for Deletion

I disagree with the motive to delete this. Yes, it is effected by roleplaying, but this starts right off the bat with someone already being on top of the bat, hunted. Stuff like that happens over time in games, and having it isn't exactly a benefit to anyone. If a decent DM gets a player with this flaw, they can make his life hell.

If the flaw doesn't fit the campaign, and all the players are already hunted, well, it's simple: don't use it. -- Flession 23:21, 9 March 2009 (MDT)

It's not "effected by roleplaying", it's purely roleplaying. Flaws are supposed to be about mechanics; as quoted from the page that defines flaws: "A flaw must have a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities. Flaws with primarily roleplaying or story effects have unpredictable effects on game balance." Not to mention that it's something every character is going to have anyway. You're a PC in a D&D campaign, of course you're going to be hated and hunted by powerful shit! That's not worth anything.

To put another way, it's unworkable as a story effect. If you're making your player's life "hell", it's a really bad flaw because flaws are supposed to be inconvenient, not crippling. If, on the other hand, you make the flaw something that's mildly inconvenient, that's worth absolutely nothing because a D&D character and is thus already expected to be hunted by shit in an inconvenient manner. Surgo 23:28, 9 March 2009 (MDT)

So you're telling me that a additional burden of someone else pissed off at you wouldn't effect the game in any way, shape, or form? Especially right at the start of the game? Also, I've had few games of D&D where my party was specifically hunted around by groups. I can edit it so it does some sort of mechanical function, if I have to, but you can't tell me every single campaign you play in you're gonna be hunted. Such motives for every single game is, at best, predicatable and boring. You might benefit to try other game types. -- Flession 23:40, 9 March 2009 (MDT)

You've just been kind enough to bring up yet another problem in the flaw: what the hell is supposed to happen when you permanently beat off whatever was hunting you? Or grow strong enough so that whatever was originally hunting you isn't a threat anymore? Or have the hunter-thing be weak compared to you in the first place (not all campaigns start at level 1)? Or really just in general neutralize the problem with the flaw in the first place? It's this laundry list of problems that's the reason that flaws aren't supposed to be based in story effects in the first place. Surgo 00:33, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

Because your limited view on D&D prevents you from realizing how to use this flaw effectively, how about you look further down at the notes portion. I'll save you the trouble:

"Special: This flaw requires some time and effort from the player using it. The player will have to come up with a back story of what his/her PC has done to this group and why they want him/her. Specific details as to what this group is and what they are about can be worked out with the DM. Everything else (i.e. when, where, and how they strike) will be left up to the DM.

(...)As stated before, this flaw requires time and effort from both the player and the DM. If neither are willing to put the effort required for it, just don't take the flaw."

In other words, if this flaw does not mesh with the game that you are playing or it's too complicated to really implement, simply do not take/allow the flaw. This flaw does not work with games you seem to play (dungeon crawls, easily defined plots, railroad games, etc). I am not bashing such games, as I do enjoy them from time to time. What I am saying is that the DM should determine what will work for his game and what won't work for his game: not a rules lawyer.

Also, since I am not at work and able to actually give you a respectable response, your bringing up the rules of flaws on a wiki site that focuses the majority of its content on customization is quite...interesting. Yes, following some mechanical aspects of the game is important, but, to counter your rule of flaws, I wish for you to look at the very beginning of the Dungeon Masters Guide. It mentions about the DM having such creative control to determine what it is that they want to do and for the player to determine if he likes it. If he doesn't, he can mention it, or he can go play something else.

I suggest you read it a couple of times. -- Flession 18:38, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

And I suggest you reread my point, because it looks like you haven't read it...like, at all. Because that still doesn't answer any of the laundry list of questions I have, except for where you start after level 1. For convenience, I will paste them again: what the hell is supposed to happen when you permanently beat off whatever was hunting you? Or grow strong enough so that whatever was originally hunting you isn't a threat anymore? Or have the hunter-thing be weak compared to you in the first place (not all campaigns start at level 1)? Or really just in general neutralize the problem with the flaw in the first place? Could you please just answer these questions, and stop throwing red herrings at me. Surgo 18:42, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

You've missed the answers between the lines of text, so I will make it more readable for you:

"What the hell is supposed to happen when you permanently beat off whatever was hunting you?" A good DM wouldn't allow such a thing to happen. If a DM can't plan for such a possibility or come up with something else, he shouldn't allow this flaw So they defeat one branch of something..wow, another one pops up! And they're even more pissed off that you tried something. It really depends on the campaign and these are the questions and decisions a DM should ask and make. A creative DM can make this flaw great.

"Or grow strong enough so that whatever was originally hunting you isn't a threat anymore?" A good DM wouldn't allow such a thing to happen. If a DM can't plan for such a possibility or come up with something else, he shouldn't allow this flaw.

"Or have the hunter-thing be weak compared to you in the first place (not all campaigns start at level 1)?" Same question, same answer.

"Or really just in general neutralize the problem with the flaw in the first place?" Guess what the answer is?

"Could you please just answer these questions, and stop throwing red herrings at me." I hope that was clear enough. --Flession 19:06, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

How are those answers to anything? To give an example: if you're starting the game at level 1 and you're being hunted by the Kingdom of Eternal Light, whose most badass member happens to be a bit higher than King Arthur level and is like level 8 or 9, and then you reach the point in the game where you're level 11, then that's not even a threat anymore and you can pretty much stop caring about your hunted status. And if that mandates the intervention of something even more powerful, then that doesn't even make sense and totally kills the game's verisimilitude because if whatever you did was severe enough to mandate that kind of attention they would have sent it at you in the first place, when you were level 1, and just took care of you right off the bat (something which makes the flaw unplayable). It's these kind of problems that don't have answers without ruining a world's believability. Surgo 19:10, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

Oh god almighty, I think everyone made their points. Still I tend to side with Surgo, if the player want to be hunted, then let him be. But why giving him a feat, it like giving a mechanical bonus for a storyline effect. --Lord Dhazriel 19:22, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

An NPC in any game can level as the players do, thus not making for a weaker NPC as the player progresses in skill (he's adventuring just like the players do). --Green Dragon 10:19, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I do apologize about the delay, but RL and all. Anyways, within your scenario, say the PC's do get end up finishing him off, running the kingdom into ruin and finally ending the life of the King..well, the King isn't very happy about that. While the kingdom is being ransacked, he makes a deal with a devil to continue the hunt, damning his soul for all eternity, but ensuring that he will have company in his torment. I read that situation and came up with it, seriously, within 2 minutes. That's because I'm a good DM. A newbie DM may get thrown asunder (although I feel a newbie DM should probably stick to premade campaigns and not allow custom content right away IMHO.) Anyways, everyone else has thrown in good arguments and I'll try to read them all, but I just wanted to throw it out..mostly out of ego.and mostly because it's a really good idea ^_^-- Flession 14:50, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

[edit] Save the Article

Okay, now, I just learned about how flaws work yesterday. After reading and rereading UA:Character Flaws, and reading this article several times (as well as the discussion here)... I still can't see how this is actually a flaw. A flaw is supposed to be like an un-feat that prevents the character from doing something well. This doesn't. A flaw is also supposed to be mechanically measurable. Again, not so much. Now, while it doesn't say it outright, a flaw is sorta like failing in one aspect of your physical being or mental capacities and making up for it in other places via a feat. I still don't understand how having a character be pursued by an unstoppable, unsatisfying force somehow grants them a feat.

Now, of course I like the idea of having a character who gets hunted down by some other force or such (oddly enough, I'm just about to work such a thing out for a player in a game I DM, which is happening naturally over the course of the game). He gets no bonus feat for something with no penalty of course, and will likely even earn bonus experience for the thing, so really, its less of a flaw and more of a boon...anyways, I'm getting off point. I'd like to see the article salvaged/saved. But as is, its not a flaw, not by a long shot.

Since a flaw has gotta have some actual effect on the character's abilities to account for the bonus feat it grants, what about adding some kind of distrust of strangers, like penalties to sense motive and diplomacy or whatever...perhaps a bad reputation, as if he were a criminal (justly or unjustly accused)... wait, that doesn't affect his abilities. Dang, this is hard. Anyways, I'm all for saving the article, but it needs an overhaul if it is to remain an actual Flaw and not some other kind of article.

Also, Flession, if you'd like, you can always stop by the The Tavern for some live conversation. --Ganteka 19:42, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

Oh, one more thing, forgot to ask, has this ever been playtested? --Ganteka 19:51, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

I am playtesting it, starting from first level. If a DM wants to run with it, thats great, if a DM doesnt want to run with it, then you cant have it. My character has resulted to having to be sneaky and not revealing his/her identity. The flaw affects how you can play the game, not in the form of strictly numerical penalties, but in the form of restricting the actions you can get away with without fear of reprisal. The spirit of a flaw is to force an aspect onto the character by use of a penalty, significant enough that it exceeds a feat. Played right this does indeed meet that, though multiple means. For instance a character with this really cant ever come out and claim responsibility for an act, and thus misses out on some or all of the reward, they cant take the downtimes casters normally use to create spells or copy spells into their spellbooks without taking steps to ensure their safety, and there is a larger implication of this flaw than simple "Me hunt you down and club you until one of us is dead"

While this kind of situation can arise naturally in a campaign, others can also be duplicated through the application of curses or similiar objects bound to a character, so I consider that argument to be a non starter. Likewise the argument that a flaw isnt supposed to make a players life a living hell? Well, Murkey eyed, one of the UA feats, can be turned into a living hell for whoever took it simply by having everything completely or partially concealed. Slow? Send an army of Rampaging Feral Half Ogre Barbarians after them (For a cool 60ft speed), or dissallow magical and equestrian travel.

In short, if a DM wants to run with it, its fair enough. Its been fun to play with and it hasnt upset the balance of the game at all so far. I dont see how simply deleting it serves any purpose however. --Spickle 22:14, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

So what are you guys planning on doing when you outgrow (in power level) the guys that are hunting you in the first place? Surgo 22:33, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

That is not likely to happen until epic level. The group cited as being the aggressors are a group of powerful Arcane casters. The game is kept possible, and not overwhelmingly nasty, by use of subtle machinations and intermediaries in the earlier levels, while personal appearances seem to be just on the horizon. --Spickle 05:22, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

If they are epic level, why don't they just teleport in on you, kill or capture you, and leave? It's seriously hard to believe that you have epic-level guys wanting you and you're still alive as a level 1 character. Surgo 08:49, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

An NPC in any game can level as the players do, thus not making for a weaker NPC as the player progresses in skill (he's adventuring just like the players do). --Green Dragon 10:32, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Well, I only have one statement to add to this discussion. As the person who is playtesting this flaw above stated:

The spirit of a flaw is to force an aspect onto the character by use of a penalty, significant enough that it exceeds a feat. Played right this does indeed meet that, though multiple means.

The only problem with that, takes the form of three simple words: "If played right". Now then, this flaw could possibly be amazing for the game if the DM was J.K. Rowling (first famous author to come to my mind), but what if the DM is brand new? what if the DM is extremely nice? what if the DM is (forgive me) stupid? These people probably believe that they could handle the flaw, and make it interesting, but then they play the game, and Joe, the level 2 Kobold Commoner turns out to be the one hunting them (it's interesting isn't it?). My point is, you have to play it right in order to get the correct benifit, if it's played wrong, then the character gets a free feat. There's too much "if" tied in with the flaw for it to be playable. → Rith ^(talk) 23:11, 10 March 2009 (MDT)

The DM in question is new. It doesnt require any special super storytelling abilities, only the ability to realistically portray a villainous or powerful element, which is something of a prerequisite for being a DM in the first place. Admittedly, a poor DM can be messed with and allow this to be abused, but as i have said, the DM has the final say and can Veto it if he/she thinks it is innappropriate. Other flaws can also be vetoed when they have negligable effects on the characters in question. For example, the flaw, Murky Eyed, (Presented on d20srd) is essentially nothing to a character with tremorsense, likewise, the flaw slow has no effect whatsoever on a player with flight of good or higher (And arguably any form of flight), and there are a number of races that grant this, though with level adjustments. Similarly the Pathetic flaw, when applied to ones dump stat, has negligable effect on a persons play except in the rare case of ability score debuffs, such as the Psions Ego Whip, combined with decent saves and the flaw is essentially a free feat for negligable outcome. With the right race you have the same effect. As for the alleged kobold example above, the text of the flaw on the page reads, rather clearly i should point out:

"Effect: You've upset a major power in your area/city/kingdom/plane and they are after blood: your blood"

Emphasis on the term "major". I'll admit it takes a moderate to good DM to pull this off well, but just because it requires some form of skill on the part of both people involved doesnt mean it should be deleted. --Spickle 05:22, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Ok, i have signed up and set all my comments to my name. Not all of what was said above is directed to you Rith, just general comments regarding nullifying the effects of flaws. --Spickle 05:38, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

“	The group cited as being the aggressors are a group of powerful Arcane casters	”
—That Guy Defending This

So... They teleport in after scrying on you, kill you or capture you with relative ease? The problem here is not with your roleplaiz or "thingz dat r interstin", but they're with the fact a non-mechanical thing gives you a mechanical thing. It's like gaining a money for saying you're a muffin. Then the problem is also enhanced by the fact, y'know, the entire thing hinges on a second party who must have a partial decision (The DM, I'm sure you're going to go off and whine about how the DM IS ALWAYS THAR, but in theory; the DM is impartial). If the people chasing you are "powerful arcane casters", why don't they just use their powerful arcane magic to come and get you easily? Especially if you won't beat them till epic. It's like it's just a niggling little thought there saying "hey, someone's hunting you, not going to come for you though, too busy fapping". So, ultimately; what's the point?

Murky-Eyed; right, because everyone has Tremorsense. And nothing can fly. And nothing with a miss chance is incorporeal either. Pathetic; because having an even lower dump stat never hurt anyone. I mean, Charisma NEVER comes up ever, so might as well dump that, right? The problem, iterated again for your benefit, of your flaw is that it is not a mechanical penalty. It relies on railroads and fiats. That is now how a flaw works. --TK-Squared 05:47, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

You seem to be misunderstanding the scale and scope of a flaw as it applies to a living game setting. Deliberately, methinks, given your hostility and rather blunt oversimplification. Each character has their own plots and agendas and, as they are a rather evil conglomerate, they have their own internal squabbles.

The DM and I worked this out, it goes beyond simply a concerted dedicated effort to hunt down and kill a single individual. Power struggles between the individuals at the top demand that they personally expend minimal magical resources on scrying out the target (A simple "If i use energy amount X on target Y, then i cannot use it on my rivals and they will have a slight advantage over me" thing), the campaign is set a decade after the event, a good portion of the early part of this involved my character being beyond the reach of scrying (There are ways, even in the SRD to do this). You are not considering this in the context of a living world. Until a character actually becomes powerful enough to warrant severe action, or is on the way to some other important thing of the NPC's, it is unlikely to waste its energy doing so personally and will instead operate through minions.

Lets just deal with your comment on nothing can fly, using decent speeds, of course. Raptorans from Savage Species can fly at 40' with good manouverability, Dragonkin from teh Draconicon can fly 40' with Good maneuverability, which allows hovering so they need never land at all, shame about the 7 HD though. Nycter are a 3hd creature in MM3 that can fly, Gloamings (Underdark page 12) can fly, and have no racial HD at all, only a +2 LA. Windrazor from MM4 can fly as well, though it has 2HD and a +2 LA, the slow feat seems built for the Pixie, which has a 60 foot fly speed with good maneuverability, and a +4 LA. There are other races out there i have not even bothered to mention, but clearly your understanding of the nature of flying player characters is false. Indeed, the spell Overland Flight can be used to overcome the feat more or less indefinitely, though it only has average maneuverability.

All flaws can be duplicated in game with persistent magical effects or entirely nullified by sufficent application of cheese in the form of prestige classes, races, and templates.--Spickle 07:59, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Sarcasm, guys. It's serious business. See what I did there, that was parody. Now, let me educate you on sarcasm.

So, these POWERFUL ARCANE MAGES can't spare a level 4 spell and 1 hour? Man, those resources must be stretched. Of course, y'know, every level 1 character has access to resources like Mindblank. Obviously! How silly of me to assume not.

You also forgot Dragonborn from Races of Dragon, they're pretty decent for flight. Or a Half-Dragon template on a large creature. When you're trying to look cool or something next time, you can use them. No need to thank me.

A flaw is taken at level 1, it's pretty hard to negate those penalties then.

The point still stands that this flaw has no mechanical drawbacks and, for that lack, you gain a mechanical boost. It's like gaining something for nothing; nothing but something that could've been done by simply roleplaying a character well. You don't need this flaw to be hunted; it's just taken so you can get a feat out of it. None of the things described making it "fun" for a DM are things that he couldn't do anyway. But, if the hunter is making no attempts to hunt you other than "Oh, twiddly my fingers until he turns up somewhere", especially at level 1, it's going to be just "+1 Feat!".

Ultimately; this isn't a flaw, it's a roleplaying aspect of a game that gives you a bonus for no real reason. --TK-Squared 09:05, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Could you turn down the insults, please, TK? Please don't turn this into another most unbalanced class argument... --Sam Kay 09:21, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I've Removed template:delete, as this article is well written (again). If you don't like it as a [whatever], move it to 4e other. --Sam Kay 09:26, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

The purpose of my marking half of them on the wiki for deletion, or even what this article is, so please do not touch this article or the template again. It is not even 4e! Surgo 09:27, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Well Spickle, I'd like to offer an official welcome to the wiki. [By the way, just so you know, TK can be rather [I think you can put your own word here [no offense intended to TK]]] I don't have any time to type up any kind of considerable contribution to this discussion right now, and am really just typing this to avoid you from getting scared away by Mr. Squared. Though I'll type up a proper response to your statements above later. → Rith ^(talk) 09:33, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Spickle and TK-Squared please remember to stay civil. Also please keep in mind that not everyone thinks like you, just like you do not think like everyone else. Because you were being rude and inconsiderate to each other, this a warning. Please try to be nice. --Green Dragon 13:28, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

[edit] My mini Edit War With Sam Kay

If the flaw gets balanced, the delete template can be removed. Right now, please stop touching it because it is clear that you do not understand flaws or their balancing. Whether or not it is well-written has no bearing on balance. You have yet to even give a balance argument on this page. Surgo 09:29, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Template delete should not be added until you've tried to fix it. I'm not getting involved in this argument, I'm just saying that before you delete stuff because of various reasons, please try to fix them; it's not just a random thing someone's put here, it has good quality text, regardless of balance. Also, I know what a flaw is, I just removed the template because I think it should be fixed rather than deleted. Also, that 4e thing was a typo. Sorry. --Sam Kay 09:39, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

The entire point is that it's unfixable because it goes against the most absolute basic rules for flaws as laid out in Unearthed Arcana. I haven't tried to fix it because the entire concept is unfixable. Surgo 09:40, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

[edit] After Skimming the Discussions

I only skimmed the discussions, but I say don't delete. Instead split the flaws up into "3.5e UA-Style Flaws" and "3.5e User-Defined Flaws." (Oddly enough, the first set of flaws posted on the wiki used a house-rule different from what's in the UA.) This way each flaw that doesn't fit the UA specs, can have its own rules defined within the flaw itself. —Sledged (talk 09:56, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

A house rule that has since been acknowledged to have been a mistake and has been removed, and things that used that concept have all been moved to the Traits section of the wiki. Surgo 12:28, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I'm not going to get into an edit war over the deletion template. Here are the facts:

• This flaw is workable, though only if the DM takes proper advantage of it
• This flaw is weak in comparison to most, and can possibly be abused by players to get another trait
• This article is well written

So, here is what this article needs: playtesting. Not deletion. Maybe we should come up with a playtesting template in lieu of deletion. However, deletion is entirely improper. If it were to be reworked, say if I made a Hunted, Hooper Variant (DnD Flaw) I'd change what was gained to something else entirely instead of a feat. Maybe to something that eases the person's ability to stay hidden from said group - small bonus to hide/move silently, or the effectiveness of having one of the lower level stealthy feats. Or, better yet, not give any bonus - leave that to the counterbalancing trait.  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:52, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Here are more facts that you don't mention but are every bit as important:

• Unearthed Arcana defines very clearly and very specifically what flaws should do.
• Unearthed Arcana says very clearly that "A flaw must have a numeric effect on a character's specific capabilities. Flaws with primarily roleplaying or story effects have unpredictable effects on game balance."
• This flaw is purely a story effect and roleplaying, and has no numerical effect.
• In addition to the above, the flaw makes no sense in the context of the Dungeons & Dragons world. After a certain point, it becomes irrelevant. In most cases, before a certain point, you have to wonder how the character even survives (see the above discussion) if the world is to even be believable.

As long as this article does not do what a flaw is supposed to do, it should not be on the wiki. Deletion is entirely proper here. Surgo 12:27, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I'd like to see where you are getting your quote from UA at, as I'm reading it now and do not see what you are claiming to quote.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:38, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

[1]. It's, like, right there. Under Metagame Analysis: Creating Flaws. Surgo 12:39, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Ah, in a sidebar. That helps. However, once again, this does not say no to roleplaying-only flaws, only discourages them as they may imbalance. So I still see this as a playtesting issue. (Edit:Scratch this, rereading brings it across properly. Under this light, that is true. However the article can still be easily saved. Watch.) I'd personally completely remove the +1 feat though. Take a flaw - take a trait. No need for other bonuses.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:43, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

What the hell? How does the word must not say no to roleplaying flaws? It doesn't get any more crystal clear than that. (edit: nevermind that, since the above post was edited). If you want to make it into a trait, go ahead and the deletion template can be removed. But a flaw very specifically gives one bonus feat -- if it's not doing that, it isn't a flaw. It's a trait. And it should not be in the flaw namespace. Go ahead and move it and make it actually workable as a trait. I'm not stopping you. In fact, I'll be happy. The sooner this is out of the Flaws section the better. It still needs changes to be a trait, but they aren't so severe. Surgo 12:46, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Users are allowed to define their own sub-mechanics for d20. In fact, before any UA material showed up on this wiki, someone posted their own variant rules for character flaws. This isn't anything WotC hadn't been doing all throughout 3(.5)e. They started with spells, added psionic powers, added epic spells, added soulmelds, added invocations, added skill tricks, added substitution levels, and so on and so on. This is in addition to the slew of variant rules in the UA. Clearly, this is not a flaw as specified by the UA, but that alone is not enough to warrant deletion. It can be a flaw in some other rule system or a stand-alone variant rule. —Sledged (talk 12:50, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

And that alone isn't the only reason it's up for deletion. It's just one of several. Surgo 12:52, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

What? Sledged is saying that just because this does not follow Wizards rules for flaws it shouldn't warrant deletion. Instead of being required to follow the UA flaw rules, it should be labeled as a "variant flaw" within the variant flaw rulesystem of "You gain something at the price of something else." And I agree. We now just need to make a variant flaw area. --Green Dragon 13:12, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

And yet none of those reasons are listed in the delete template. Let me rephrase: Its failure to adhere to all the UA rules for flaws neither adds to nor takes away from the merit of it being deleted. It is grounds for it to be renamed, moved, tagged as non-UA flaw, made to conform to UA rules, etc... But of all the reasons for this flaw to be deleted, the one given in the delete template is one that has no business being there. —Sledged (talk 13:06, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Then I shall change the message on the delete template. In addition, there is no tag for non-UA flaws (nonsensical to me, seeing as how the rules for flaws are defined in UA). Perhaps one should be added. Surgo 13:09, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

It's a "straw that broke the camel's back" thing. There are a lot of reasons that together add up into "this should be deleted". Unquantifiable effect, effect on all party members instead of yourself, not following UA guidelines, causes verisimilitude problems in the world (see discussion with Hooper below)...lots of straws. Surgo 13:15, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

[edit] Altering the flaw

Here is my suggestion to make the flaw more playable:

• Reword the effect part as follows:

Effect: You've upset a major power in your area/city/kingdom/plane and they are after blood: your blood. Maybe, if you're lucky, they will spare your companions of your fate...maybe. Regardless, you will be hunted and brought to justice. Of course, one's brand of justice has always been a subjective term. Your pursuers have vastly spread the word of your demise around, and others are less likely to have dealings with you. As such, You take a -4 Penalty on all Bluff, Disguise, Diplomacy, and Gather Information checks.

Comments/Suggestions/Thoughts?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:48, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I removed the "remove bonus feat" suggestion. It was coming across to me as if this flaw gave a second additional feat in addition to the one you get just for taking a flaw. Now I see what it is saying - just the basics. Nevermind that then.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:50, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Then it's not a flaw anymore, because flaws give bonus feats. It's a trait but unlike other traits, it doesn't actually do anything. It needs to have some minor bonus to actually be useful at all. This idea is sorta similar to the character backgrounds in Races of War (3.5e Sourcebook), which itself is similar to traits. Move it to the trait section of the wiki, give it some minor bonus. Surgo 12:52, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I believe your first reply is invalidated by my edited add-on to the suggestion. You may wish to re-read the proposal.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   12:56, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Your proposal doesn't make sense. Why would you take a -4 penalty on those checks if you were being hunted by the Kingdom of Eternal Light on the Prime Material Plane and then plane shifted to Carceri where nobody has even heard of or cares about the Kingdom of Eternal Light? Surgo 12:58, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

The answer to that goes back to the author's comments: that this flaw does in fact take some prep and thought and time from the DM. That is not a reason for deletion. Playtesting, maybe. Deletion, no.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:01, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

What playtesting is required here? If such a simple case as "I just move to Carceri where nobody cares" breaks the whole concept in two, there's something seriously wrong. In addition, I don't think people quite get the concept of what playtesting is. Playtesting involves math. It involves rigor. It tells you absolutely by the rigorous process known as mathematical analysis whether something is broken or not. There is no mathematical analysis that can be applied to this flaw. Surgo 13:03, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Because "such a simple case" doesn't break the whole concept in two, as you put it. It just provides the DM with planar power-packing NPCs under the hire of the pursuer to track down the PC, leaving him constantly in a state of moving and paranoia, and with the added minuses and hits to his skills that are used alot when meeting new people, it really may work out. As such, playtesting is appropriate.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:06, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

If the NPCs are packing planar power and are capable of tracking you across things like planes, why didn't they just teleport to you and kill you when you first committed the crime and were on the run? Verisimilitude problems abound with this flaw. Surgo 13:07, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Presumably, the PC was a very low level (since this is at character creation) when the crime was committed. Therefor, the NPCs would not overkill and just send out an aggressor to handle the problem. As the PC grew in level and constantly met their challenge, the NPCs would get more and more frustrated, sending higher and higher power until maybe even coming themselves. Once again, this discussion we're having right now is all playtesting - not deletion.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:10, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

So there are two cases: 1, what the PC did was important enough to warrant the use of resources on the power level to track across multiple planes. 2, what the PC did was not important enough for that. In the case of 1, why would the resources not be used immediately? That makes absolutely no sense. In the case of 2, why would you then expend the resources to track across multiple planes if what the PC did was not important enough to expend those resources? That also makes no sense. Surgo 13:13, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

These are all good, warranted questions Surgo, with many possible answers or no answer - which is exactly why playtesting would be great for this.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:14, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

You can't playtest something that's unquantifiable. Playtesting is the subjecting of a rule to less-than-completely-rigorous mathematical analysis. You can't subject something unquantifiable to mathematical analysis. Surgo 13:17, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

There are so many options for this it can never be balanced. But it can be very interesting. For example it could be a childhood rival who has always hated the PC. As soon as the PC left home he left home too, always following him, adventuring while following. Hunting him. When the PC gains a level, he gains a level. The reason it can never be balanced is because it is always up to the DM, and just the DM. He could make this childhood rival meet them in a dungeon, right before a nasty creature. As they injure each other the NPC flees (to fight again another day). Then the PC's have to go face the nasty creature. That is not balanced. Although what happens when the inevitable will happen? The PC defeats this problem? Will he lose the feat? The issue with this is it can never be balanced, but it does add an unique flavor to the game. --Green Dragon 13:23, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

[edit] Summation of Arguments and Possible Solutions

Okay, since everything has gotten long, I'll try to sum up the arguments against this as a flaw:

• Unquantifiable effect.
• Effect on all party members instead of yourself.
• Not following UA guidelines that define what flaws actually are...like, at all.
• Causes verisimilitude problems in the world (see discussion with Hooper).

How can this be fixed? Well, let's recognize that it's a character background. That makes it a perfect choice for being done as either a Trait or a Character Background. But not a flaw, which is very specific in what it should accomplish. Surgo 13:20, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

Hooper's reply

• Do not agree that point one exists
• Could be a valid bad thing, needs to be playtested or reworded to more rigorously effect the PC and not his party.
• See above discussion for Green Dragon's idea, as well as a variant above with my thoughts on how to make it conform
• Do not agree that point four exists.

Next person's reply?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:24, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

You can't just say that "this effect is quantifiable", you have to actually quantify it. If it can't be quantified...it is obviously unquantifiable. And if it is not quantifiable, it cannot be playtested. So please quantify the effect it if you want to make the point. Surgo 13:26, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

• It does have an unquantifiable effect. Too many variables exist to ever make it so it does not have a different effect every game, therefore unquantifiable.
• I agree - that's a problem.
• Just make a variant flaw area. This is irrelevant.
• This is just a result of the unquantifiable effect.

So the problems stand:

1. Unquantifiable effect.
2. Has an effect on the entire party.

Does that warrant deletion, is the question, or can it be salvaged? --Green Dragon 13:35, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I believe it can be salvaged, but not as a flaw but instead a Trait or a Character Background. Surgo 13:38, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

I think there is a possibility it can still work as a flaw. Take this for example (mind you this is not balanced and still only partially solves the first problem, and does not even touch the second):

Effect: You've upset someone earlier in your life and they are now after blood: your blood. Maybe, if you're lucky, they will spare your companions of your fate... maybe. Regardless, you will be hunted until killed.

A character of your ECL -1 is hunting you to your death. Maybe he is a childhood rival who was annoyed he could never beat you, maybe he is a madman who thinks you stole something of his, or maybe he is a wizard who can look into the future and knows for his sake he wants you dead. No matter their background — they want you dead. And that is all that matters.

Each day that passes the DM rolls a d%. On a 1-5 your hunter will find you that day and confront you. Where and when they confront you is entirely up to the DM. If your hunter seems to have the loosing hand he will retreat to fight again another day. If you stay in the same area for two days it increases to a 1-10. Three days a 1-15. Four days 1-20, etc.

Note: If the hunter dies the DM must use his imagination. Maybe he gets resurrected. Maybe someone else starts hunting you because you killed their friend, in any case someone is still hunting you and you better run.

Benefit: Bonus feat.

Just to get some ideas rolling. --Green Dragon 15:01, 11 March 2009 (MDT)

But in any case I feel this does need to become a trait to be made usable, since it really does not follow the UA flaw rules right now. It can be moved into a variant-flaw when or if that section is made. --Green Dragon 13:32, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

I was actually thinking something along those lines, Green Dragon, if I had to put in some dice mechanics. (And Might I say Holy Crap! I didn't expect this to escalate in such a manner! Great, though. It's a great flaw.) Also, to point out, I have play tested this flaw on numerous occasions. I used it for a long campaign and it kept the player on his toes. As to his "Kingdom of Eternal Light" argument, I can argue that..but I'll put it where he first begun. --Flession 14:40, 12 March 2009 (MDT)

I changed this to a trait and added my part above in. Since this is your trait do not feel bad improving what I added in. --Green Dragon 11:19, 17 March 2009 (MDT)