Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

I think that's a matter of opinion, and mine differs. I have a 'first edition' take on quirks, wherein they are basically free points for coming up with and implementing a role-playing hook.

I just seems to me that you are describing a character with a full-on Cowardice disadvantage, but calling it a quirk because the one character always managed to escape the consequences of it.

On the other hand, if you wanted to take a character who already HAS Cowardice, and give him a quirk of Falstaffian bragadoccio, that would be a perfectly good idea.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

Here is an idea for a physical Perk:


Hidden Scar (Deformity, Acne, Blemish, External Colostomy Bag, etc.)
Prerequisite: Appearance Attractive or better
Your body has a noticeable and grotesque flaw, such as a huge scar or patch of severe skin disease, that is normally covered up by the regular, every-day clothing appropriate to your culture and social station. You can have any Appearance better than Unattractive, but while you are naked or your flaw is otherwise exposed, you are temporarily Unattractive.
The GM has the final say on what is noticeable and grotesque enough to impact your Appearance when it is visible.

I'm not sure whether this is balanced if the character lives in a culture that includes only very minimal clothes (just a loincloth) or one that requires total body veiling (such as a woman in ancient Athens or conservative Islamic societies).

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

I'd say "You are temporarily treated as 3 appearance steps lower"

since that way, you can just end up looking AVERAGE.

"She's hot, but ugh.... those scars on her stomach don't help." or some such.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

Hmm .. would it work to say "Your Appearance is Unattractive or 3 steps lower than your usual Appearance, whichever is better?" That way it won't drop you into Ugly territory even when you have an Attractive face and nice butt. Or is your way just more realistic?


Yep, that's the concept I started with.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

Would a negative reation modifier be more appropriate?

I think it would. Eek a troll, double eek a mutant troll.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

Well I think it's unfair if it's used by a character who already has Unattractive or worse, unless it just gives a flat -3 to Appearance.

EDIT: Any Appearance worse than Average is a negative modifier to reaction rolls, so yes, it would do that.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

I just gave you 4th Ed RAW on Quirks, which specifically support my argument. A Quirk might be a roleplaying hook, but it has to be disadvantageous as well. If you're still going by 1st Ed. rules on it then you're doing it wrong when it comes to 4th Ed. It's been stated on the forum by Kromm that many of the publish Quirks from earlier editions wouldn't qualify today.

If you want them to be OK in your personal game that's fine, but telling other people on the official Forum they're wrong for following not just RAW but established 4th Ed "canon" then maybe you need to rethink your approach.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

It seems unnecessary to argue about this -- different people simply use different rules, that's all. I think it's harsh to imply anyone is "wrong" to use 4E Quirk rules or to use 3E Quirk rules. I would just say that if the ideas you post are intended for a different edition than 4E or follow a rule from a different edition or a house rule, to specify that so it doesn't confuse folks.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

The proposition we are discussing is this, your comment: "They're substantial and specific, but very very specific. To me they're as much and as specific of a Disadvantage as many published Perks are Advantage."

Not only do I not believe that appears in 4e RAW, I believe it is directly at odds with the statement on B162 which says: "A 'quirk' is a minor feature that sets you aside from others. It has a negative point value, but it is not necessarily a disadvantage." [Emphasis original.]

In fact, I put it to you that that passage supports my view more than it does yours.

Re: New and Custom Quirks?
 

The quote on p163 that I posted supports my side of it. "It gives you a small penalty very occasionally, or to a narrow set of actions."

How about we agree that a Quirk can be a broad range from an oddity about the character up to a minor penalty in a specific set of situations. Either way it has to in some way be disadvantageous or limit your play in some fashion, otherwise it's simply not worth any points at all.



The only reason I gave any kind of description at all after the Quirks I posted earlier was to help give some kind of explanation of what they meant. When I created them I really didn't have any significant idea in mind about how the worked mechanically other than to be a role-playing aid. Heck, the Falstaffian character was created to be an NPC in case my gaming group didn't have the proper skill set in their DF group. The "First Church of Tyr" part was more or less a joke about how people in small town America view "that church down the road". The three with Heavy Menses, Easy to Seduce and Unaware of Her Appearance were based on character from a written story and those aspects aren't much more than a Quirk in the story. And the "Talks quickly" was simply a roleplaying aide that I probably just gave bad numbers to.