Krest said:
Krest has no capacity to fly a ship or shoot a gun. You want to cripple him? Force him into a shootout or put him in a fighter. He won't be any help.
If I can make a point here.
An applicable, functional weakness is a weakness that can be used against you in
any given thread, or at least a vast majority of them. Your character can be the worst pilot in the galaxy, or absolute crap at hand-to-hand, or incapable of performing complex astrophysics equations. However, if you never get into a situation where you have to fly a ship, kung fu a guy, or do advanced trigonometry, it's not much of a "weakness." A lot of people make this mistake, similar to how a lot of people make the mistake of allowing their character's "weakness" to be a bad temper or a lusty heart.
A good weakness should be something that someone can find a way to use against you effectively in most situations. If one wanted to counter Fabula, to give her problems, one needs to press her into ranged combat. Not just blasters, but
any ranged combat. If you want to disable her entirely, use a powerful mental attack on her. These are not situational but
universal weaknesses. Of course she's a bad shot and a bad pilot; she never has to do these things, so she's never had any reason to get good at them. However, she has been in situations where having the ability to defend herself at range would be beneficial, and she has faced enemies with telepathic offense.
You might ask yourself "well, if I keep getting into this situation, why won't I fix my weakness? That makes sense." And it does, but it doesn't change the fact that a balanced character still has weaknesses that the majority of other characters can affect. It takes a very insightful writer to balance character growth with not being artificially more powerful due to lack of drawbacks.