Talk:Vengeful (3.5e Flaw)

Ratings

	Spanambula likes this article and rated it 3 of 4.
	Rising from the ashes of it's previous incarnation, I approve of this flaw. Much more penalizing now.

Blocked Rating	Fluffykittens opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.So basically, this is a free feat for barbarians and a nearly free feat for fighty types.

Blocked Rating	Eiji-kun opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.
	This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.See my explanations below.

Blocked Rating

Ganteka Future opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4.

This rating refers to a substantially different version of the article, or concerns mentioned in it have already been addressed.Gruuuggghh... This amounts to essentially a free feat with at most the cost of an encounter at some slight penalties over the course of a character's career. Maybe if this were a reworked as a trait or something, maybe, but as a flaw, outright no. The poor wording and misspelled title don't help either.

Tags

You need to keep the tags on the title. That "(3.5e Flaw)" part is important. I fixed it. And the typo in the title.

As for the flaw.... it's no good. A flaw should be meaningful, and though its hard to make it universally applicable most have some manner of downside. This one is you pick a single person (who may never be seen in game, may already be dead, can be killed even if they aren't, etc) and you do what you normally do, fight them. Oh no, -2 AC, the terror. It is meaningless and certainly not worth the bonus feat you gain regardless of the condition of your revenge.

Also what's with the subtle rape reference, and the emoji? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Adoption

I think im gonna adopt this. So I will. Any objections? --Leziad (talk) 23:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fuck it im going ahead, if there objections we can always revert. --Leziad (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)