Check Required as quirky thematic Unreliable.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

So the consensus seems to be Check Required as it is now isn't worth a Flaw. I agree.

It's been said that it's better to use Unreliable. That got me thinking: Is there a way to make the two different but have the same value as Flaws?


Here's my new idea:
Check Required works as before. BUT if you succeed on the AND roll 10 or less on the die some other Flaw happens: the power becomes Distracting, the user suffers a Side-Effect, the Action shoots up or the Duration shoots down. Maybe even an Extra gets lopped off. (All detrimental effects must, of course, be approved or imposed by the GM.) This effect lasts until the next successful check of 11+ on the die (up to 1 round in the case of Instant effects).

Thematically this represents that if you have to make a check you still have some flaws in your technique no matter how high a skill bonus.

Mechanically it offers an alternative to the all-or-nothing aspect of Unreliable: a high enough skill bonus and the power will work, BUT 10- is still doing something to you worthy of a Flaw.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I've thought about it some more and maybe this only works with Side-Effect since reducing the -2/rank version to 50% chance about models how the -1/rank version works. Other -1/rank flaw reduced to 50% chance aren't flaws most of the time.

I don't know about the "taking off Extras" aspect: is that still a flaw at 50% chance?

[Grayson]

I agree Check Required really isn't much of a flaw. If I may, I can offer a suggestion. I don't know if you have 3rd Edition or not. I have it but I don't really want to use it. I still prefer 2nd Edition. However, the modification to Check Required is one of the few changes in 3rd Edition that I adopted for my next game. The difference between the two editions is that in 3rd, you only have as many ranks of the effect available as your margin of success. I other words, if you have an effect with 10 ranks, you have to make your Check Required roll by a margin of 10 to use the effect at full rank. If you only succeed by 5, then you only have 5 ranks of the effect at your disposal. Furthermore, a natural 1 automatically fails.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

And I have read 3e threads that say it's still not worth a full flaw.

M&M is set up for more exacting failure rates: something worth a full Flaw has to be a detriment 50% of the time, something worth a -1 Drawback has to be a detriment about 5% of the time. Period. Check Required, either edition, lets you mess with that margin.

Flaws should not be determined in value before any adjustments to detriment, they should be determined after.