Talk:Incompetent (3.5e Flaw)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Unplayable[edit]

Taking a -4 on pretty much EVERYTHING is simply unplayable. Surgo 15:15, 9 March 2009 (MDT)

Yeah but the rules should always take a backseat to the game experience. even the DMG says that. Let people create their own games, balance isn't always important. --Fathirian Hound
Then why do we even have rules in the first place instead of just playing magical teaparty all the time? If something is so bad that nobody can ever take it, it shouldn't be here. Surgo 07:34, 10 March 2009 (MDT)
The rules are designed to supplement the game. Dungeons and Dragons is a Role-Playing Game. Therefore role-playing and creation of a unique character come before the rules. If you want to play a fair, balanced game where the rules are paramount, go buy World of Warcraft. And to give an example of how it could be used, you could have NPC's whom the PC's have to rescue but are incapable of helping themselves. The whole idea of a flaw is that IT MAKES YOU WEAKER! --Fathirian Hound
So am I going to take a flaw that gives me -4 on everything, or one that gives me -4 on only a few things (of which everything exists)? If a flaw is so bad that I won't take it because large numbers of better ones exist, that's pretty much the same as the flaw not being there in the first place. NPCs don't even require flaws -- they have whatever stats you give them. Surgo 08:37, 13 March 2009 (MDT)
If you're that obsessed with power gaming, then just don't use it in your campaign. But for the record, playing underpowered characters is usually the most rewarding. I once had a 15th level druid/10th level cleric with a Con score of 7, and she was one of my favourites. --Fathirian Hound
I felt it on the winds, someone's trying to invoke the Stormwind Fallacy! And sign your posts. --TK-Squared 16:29, 13 March 2009 (MDT)
Ah the ole SW Fallacy. A flawed argument, but a good one.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   16:32, 13 March 2009 (MDT)
What's so flawed about it? You don't say "X is a flawed argument" without actually saying what the flaw is (that in itself is a flawed argument). Surgo 20:50, 13 March 2009 (MDT)
The argument is good in talk, but not in practice. The fact is that most min/maxers do not roleplay the Min part of the character. If they did, then the "SW fallacy" would be absolutely sound.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   01:34, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
Which, um, has nothing to do with how sound or rigorous the Stormwind Fallacy is. The Stormwind Fallacy states that optimization does not imply bad roleplaying. Just because you can find an example where someone optimized and also was a bad roleplayer does not prove the Stormwind Fallacy incorrect. Deductive logic does not work that way. Surgo 01:38, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
Yawn. More Combat vs. roleplaying D&D discussions. I'll pass.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   02:05, 14 March 2009 (MDT)
Everything needs to be balanced according to the mechanics system (not an arbitrary roleplaying system). As this stands it is not balanced with mechanics in mind, and as such it is a candidate for deletion. --Green Dragon 08:42, 14 March 2009 (MDT)

Then what if to keep the mechanics in league, it was modified rather than deleted? That way the option would be there for the roleplayers while balance wiould be kept for combat gamers? I gave it a shot, but please delete if i screwed up the process or something. p.s could someone give me a hand with how to sign posts as my PC is useless and won't open the help window --Fathirian Hound

To sign: "- - ~ ~ ~ ~" Without spaces. --Sabre070 05:32, 16 March 2009 (MDT)
A good attempt, but I don't think it's good enough. I don't think anything can be made good enough without ruining the original intent of the flaw. Surgo 11:07, 16 March 2009 (MDT)
What if you limited it to only when the character is Told what to do by someone else. Like if Joe the Fighter was told to attack the Orc he would take a -4, but if he decided to do it on his own there would be no panalty. This would make it seem as they are only incompetent with the orders of others, not their own decisions. -Sarrow 11:18, 16 March 2009 (MDT)
It's another good idea, but when you do that is it really a penalty at all? You could seriously just tell everyone in the party not to give Joe any orders and he'd never even take the penalty. On the other hand, if he was ordered out on a quest as so many adventures happen, would he take a -4 on everything until the adventure is over? Both are really not good. Surgo 11:22, 16 March 2009 (MDT)
True, how about making it a trait and take a -4 to all skill checks and have it that if the character is the target of an enchantment spell, charm, dominate, etc., they gain a +4 bonus to resist, and if they are affected by the spell they are given a save any time they are given a command to negate the affect of the spell for that round or screw up the command. If they pass the save they act as normal for the round or screw the command up in some way, and if they fail the character does what they are told. -Sarrow 11:28, 16 March 2009 (MDT)
I think that's fine. This could be made workable as a trait, but not as a flaw. Shall you do it, then? Surgo 14:05, 16 March 2009 (MDT)

That sounds like a good idea to me, would balance with he theme of being useless at following instructions. --Fathirian Hound

So who would like to make the changes? -Sarrow 15:57, 16 March 2009 (MDT)
I certainly am not. Surgo 16:32, 16 March 2009 (MDT)

By the way Surgo, sorry for calling you a power gamer. User:Fathirian Hound|Fathirian Hound]] 09:47, 19 March 2009 (MDT)

Based on your assessments of the other D&D Flaws Surgo, I say you are a power gamer. You try to get flaws deleted because they have no specific mechanical application, you ignore any and all roleplaying benefits. It annoys and saddens me that you are so obsessed with numbers your characters have all the personality of a used toothpick. (THEM 19:42, 19 March 2009 (MDT))
Accusing someone of power gaming (Surgo is not a powergamer) simply because he actually defend the UA flaw policy (saying flaw shouldn't be oriented around roleplaying, but rather mechanical number) is inaccurate. Instead of insulting an user who lend of his time to improve the wiki, you should comment on the new Policy I am trying to get on the wiki. Be civil please.--Lord Dhazriel 20:52, 19 March 2009 (MDT)

I don't know who that 'THEM' guy is, but I agree with Dhazriel. I was just being as stubborn as a mule and a bonehead.----Fathirian Hound 08:35, 20 March 2009 (MDT)

This should stay because not only it is funny but it has some definite RP value. Master K 19:22, 24 March 2009 (MDT)
If the incompetent was not reliant on skills like say an invoker wizard or very offensive fighter, then how would this flaw make 'em incompetent at all? Perhaps maybe the "incompetency" can be different for each base class? After all one can only be considered incompetent at what one considered oneself to be an expert. -Chainer 16:56, 6 October 2009 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!