Fantasycraft

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by TheAuldGrump

The biggest advantage, by far, is that the adventures are not necessarily tied to level - that they can be scaled on the fly. I can say that the NPC/Monster system is pretty darned awesome. I like being able to pit a second level party against a giant and not have to worry that it will all end in tears. And because of the way NPCs work they scale relative to the PCs - so an NPC that can clean their clocks at first level can still do so at level ten.

For the homebrew in particular it means that I can scale an adventure when the PCs get to it - kind of important since it is a fairly open setting in regards to where they go. This allows me to place some adventures by area, rather than having them travel from job to job, adventure to adventure.

I've also recently wondered whether you couldn't use this to simulate slower growth in power, with the world scaling such that the PCs aren't mythical in comparison.

[TheAuldGrump]

I have not yet tried Fantasy Craft at the upper limits, so I can't speak from experience.

I did run a game of Spycraft that made it to level eighteen or so, but the group was a trifle atypical in their approach. Two years of gaming - four combats, only one of which was really dangerous. The PCs managed to duck, dodge, sneak by, or otherwise avoid nearly every combat that I had in the campaign.... My favorite involved ballroom dancing, two partner swaps, and a minor illusion spell.... I actually got annoyed at how deft they became at avoiding conflict. Something that had never happened to me before.

I have not taken a good look at True Sorcery yet, so I cannot really compare it to EoM:ME.

I did twiddle with the skill points though - the first Tradition feat a magic user takes gives him four skill points plus his Int modifier to spend only on the magic skills granted by that Tradition. He also gains a number of Magic skill points equal to the character's number of Tradition feats at each level. All other points come out of class skill points as usual.

Depending on the setting I also have casting deal subdual damage to the caster. (Still twiddling with that number - in my previously mentioned Steampunk game I first had the damage too high, and then too low. I am now going with subdual damage of D6 plus the level of the spell. The first spell is not very likely to knock you out, later spells without resting are much more likely to do so. All subdual damage resets at the end of the scene.

I am also still waffling on how to handle the subdual damage from Ritual spells - which has not been all that important in play, they managed to pretty much avoid ritual casting.

The Auld Grump

[pawsplay]

I'm sort of fascinated by the idea of Fantasy Craft, but there are a number of specific things I've noticed that are starting to give me fits. For instance, dwarves can't jump or swim. At all. If there's a DC associated with a jump or swim, they fail. Aside from the balance issues (necessity for Swim checks equals dead dwarf - this is supposed to improve play experience?), it seems like an awfully... specific... interpretation of the dwarf archetype. I'm not trying to get hung up on one thing, but it makes me nervous about what other surprises I can expect to find. On the Crafty boards the designer was talking about this issue and seemed to feel the banned actions were needed to "balance" the race because of its powerful advantages, but I wonder if perhaps the race could have simply had less powers, or if "you dwarf you die" is somehow a better result than assigning a -4 penalty or whatever to such checks, making high DCs essentially out of reach (no pun intended) of the typical dwarf.

I'm also sort of intimidated by the large amount of specialized vocabulary.

It also appears that a animating skeletons is a very intensive process that uses up lots of permanent resources... that might stand in the way of some classic villain activities.

I like to support innovative designs and I hear a lot about FC that I like the sound of, but it also sounds like there are some design choices I might consider idiosyncratic.

[coyote6]

Yeah, if I ever run Fantasy Craft, "banned actions" will mostly turn into "penalties to these actions". I'd probably replace or augment the banned actions for the dwarf, too.

(I've seen the "dwarves can't swim" thing before -- IIRC, in the Guardians of the Flame books, dwarves were denser than humans, and thus couldn't float. But "dwarves can't jump at all" just seems silly-hilarious; can dwarves hop? Skip? At what point does a long step become a short jump, and the dwarf fails and falls down?)

[pawsplay]

I'm also kind of stuck on the whole "longsword wielded two-handed is pretty much better than a greatsword in every way, including damage, unless you have a number of specialized abilities" thing. I don't want to pretend I'm speaking from great knowledge here, I don't own the book, but it's been talked over quite a bit on the Crafty forums. And the dev response is basically, "And, so?" I can appreciate that kind of panache, but it seems inconsistent with the design gains of a low(er) magic level assumed game with very extensive detail at most levels of the system. Particularly since armor = DR.

[Psion]

IME where people have tried to tack on mere penalties to skills in 3e, it has never been too meaningful. It's just "stuff you won't do and let the rest of the party take care of." It stank too much of GURPS style point farming.

That said, the banned skill check mechanic does seem a little cut-and-dried to me. The crafty take is that they can still jump/swim/whatever as long as no skill check is required. But to me, that's just a low DC and taking 10; there's always a DC.

My "behind the scenes" replacement for the banned skill check mechanic is:
1) None of your ranks apply to the check, and
2) -4 to the check.

That way, it
1) maps more neatly to the "spectrum of DCs" and not just relying on DM generosity, and
2) handles cases like jump spells, etc., in a way the cut-and-dried solution can't
... while still serving as an occasional snag when the check comes up in play.

[pawsplay]

That seems more reasonable and useful to me. It amounts to almost the same thing, but doesn't result in as many absurd special cases. Alex, however, suggest that such a light-hearted approach would result in humans being completely overwpowered. Hm.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Alex, however, suggest that such a light-hearted approach would result in humans being completely overwpowered.

It would, in the sense that dwarves then would have one less flaw that would make people consider twice whether their concept needs a dwarf over a human. Same reasoning as Iconic Classes and Iconic Specialties.

I'm not sure a simple -4 penalty is going to be able to replace that: as you go up in level it's going to mean less and less. Possibly if you always start at Level 1 it might scare you enough, but what if you start at higher level? I think Banned Skill Checks were just the simplest method the designers could come up with to keep the flaw relevant at all levels.

@pawsplay, in regards to longswords vs. greatswords: Shouldn't the use of a lighter weapon be easier -- and thus more likely to cause damage -- than a heavier one unless the wielder of the heavy one has more skill?

[Psion]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

I'm not sure a simple -4 penalty is going to be able to replace that: as you go up in level it's going to mean less and less.

If this is a reference to my post, you missed half of the fix. The no ranks apply to the check (and implicitly, the check is always considered unskilled) will certainly have an impact as the group levels.

[Votan]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

@pawsplay, in regards to longswords vs. greatswords: Shouldn't the use of a lighter weapon be easier -- and thus more likely to cause damage -- than a heavier one unless the wielder of the heavy one has more skill?

I'd kind of assume the reverse. You give untrained miltia heavier or larger weapons not smaller ones; i.e. spears and not daggers. Unless the argument is that the greatsword is simply too awkward to wield without special training, I'd think that learning to use the lighter weapon to maximize velocity (thus increasing energy) without overbalancing and overcoming the reach limitations would be a mark of skill.

Maybe the damage isn't the right place for this difference to show up but being uniformly superior seems odd. It's certainly easier to hit harder with a longer lever arm (2 handed sword) than a shorter one; which would make the armor penetration difference germane.

[Psion]

I think Fantasy Craft puts more emphasis on the differentiation lying in the feat chains than the weapons themselves. This is more true of some weapons than others.

The main reason I might consider Greatsword over a 1-H or Fencing Sword would have more to do with how I want to build the character (frex, not wanting to put ranks in sense motive to get the best out of Sword Basics) rather than raw weapon damage.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by Psion

If this is a reference to my post, you missed half of the fix. The no ranks apply to the check (and implicitly, the check is always considered unskilled) will certainly have an impact as the group levels.

Sorry, thought those were separate proposals.

@Votan: Well Vitality points measure not only damage but fatigue of combat, and if you can swing your weapons faster (if it's light) you can wear down your enemy as he/she/it has to use up energy dodging or resisting more blows.

I just see the whole issue as a problem of the d20 systems and their schizophrenia between "1 attack = 1 swing" and the abstract nature of their damage resolution.

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw2

@pawsplay, in regards to longswords vs. greatswords: Shouldn't the use of a lighter weapon be easier -- and thus more likely to cause damage -- than a heavier one unless the wielder of the heavy one has more skill?

I'm going to go with "No." Now, in AD&D, it's arguable, as historically, two-handed longsword use has been popular, everywhere from feudal Germany to the Shogunate. It is fast, accurate, and relatively powerful as a weapon. However, the greatsword is inarguably more powerful, and this advantage should be reflected in some way. The greatsword is, historically, a somewhat exotic weapon simply because it is big, making it both expensive and heavy (sometimes 4.5 lbs and up, compared to about 3 lbs. for most arming swords).

In the case of a novice, it is almost certainly a superior choice to give someone the biggest sword they can wield. Anything shorter than their shoulder height and a reasonable weight. If you were going to give a sword to a hulking brute with a 16 Strength, there is very little question that without training, the greatsword is the way to go. I think this is important, because not everyone who uses a weapon is going to be an expert, so the baseline for comparison should be a proficient, basic user of the weapon.

Every abstraction has to consider the outcomes. In Fantasy Craft, armor = DR. Greatswords are superior at cleaving light armor, superior at denting mail and plate, and superior for reaching vulnerable joints and hinges. Since armor = DR, there is little choice but to make the greatsword superior in damage.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

Every abstraction has to consider the outcomes. In Fantasy Craft, armor = DR. Greatswords are superior at cleaving light armor, superior at denting mail and plate, and superior for reaching vulnerable joints and hinges. Since armor = DR, there is little choice but to make the greatsword superior in damage.

Or give it greater AP because that's how you break through armor, not damage.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. I just think the issue is the system is not realizing that it can't roll "fatigue of combat" and "light damage" into one category. If you track fatigue vs. damage then a weapon's damage doesn't matter on some types of attacks because it's about how easy it is to force you opponent to get tired dodging your blows.

EDIT: Although if the reach of a greatsword is such that you have to dodge more to avoid it that doesn't change what you said. This is what I meant by "I'm not really disagreeing with you."

[pawsplay]

At one point, I was starting to think, "I should really give this a try, if only to look at what they did with the core rules," but at this point, I'm a lot more cautious. I think I really want to spend some time paging through this at Ye Olde Gaming Store.

[SilvercatMoonpaw2]

Here's the response I gave on another thread regarding what I think FantasyCraft is designed for:

That's probably because FantasyCraft is coming out of Spycraft. Or you could call it MissionSpecialistcraft.

I never played Spycraft, never even read the book, but if it's trying to emulate spy movies I think it's built with the premise that not everyone contributes at the exact same spacetime coordinates. Your Hacker guy doesn't contribute in the current fight against the evil mastermind because that's not his time, or, ideally, he's trying to shut down the mastermind's system while the fighter guys are fighting.

Translated to Fantasycraft that means the "skill monkey" classes aren't supposed to be contributing to a fight that's not their time. The Courtier is for Social time, the Explorer is for Find Clue time, and the Keeper is for Fix-it-Build-it time.

For some people that system works, they're fine with it. For others they want everyone to be built to somehow contribute to all, or a sub-set of, situations even if it's not all equal. For those people FantasyCraft might not be the right system.

[drnuncheon]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I'm going to go with "No." Now, in AD&D, it's arguable, as historically, two-handed longsword use has been popular, everywhere from feudal Germany to the Shogunate. It is fast, accurate, and relatively powerful as a weapon. However, the greatsword is inarguably more powerful, and this advantage should be reflected in some way.

Oh, it is - but the greatsword also required more training, and that's reflected too. If you actually rack up the greatsword-related feats you're going to be a scary area-denial machine.

The basic feat gives you defense bonus like a shield and lets you enter a stance where you can do max damage if your opponent hasn't moved. The next step lets you use hammer and sword tricks (if you have those feats) and lets you stop foes dead in their tracks if they try to move adjacent to you. The third feat gives you an AOE attack against everyone within 10 feet.

I actually really like the way FantasyCraft sets up the feat chains for the different weapon types - it gives reasons to choose a polearm over a sword, or a hammer over an axe (or vice versa).

J

[Khaalis]

Kinda getting in on this late but I had a few comments anyway.

On the FC Dwarves topic, keep in mind that their Banned Actions are for a specific type of dwarf. The reasoning being physical, environmental and mechanics.

First and foremost, as Psion already pointed out, keep in mind that in FC, you don’t make a skill check for a mundane function. You only make skill checks for advanced, complex actions. Example, a dwarf CAN jump to say “jump & skip” or to jump up and reach a higher shelf, or could swim a doggy paddle across a calm stream. A dwarf CAN’T however jump to clear a major clearance such as a running long jump or swim the English channel. As an example, think of the LotR scenes on the stairs in Moria or outside the walls of Helm’s Deep (“Toss Me, but don’t tell the Elf”).

Additionally, a “typical” LotR Mountain Dwarf (which the base FC dwarf is based on) I can see having these penalties physically. The physical build of a mountain dwarf is definitely not designed for jumping or swimming. They are very heavy and very stocky with somewhat disproportionately short legs and arms for their height. Remember, dwarves are NOT built the same as humand or elves. Secondly they live in tunnels and caverns. There is little to no real need for jumping or swimming so they would have no extended need to train in these skills. Now, if you want dwarves that are acclimated to water and used to swimming, be a Cliff-born Dwarf.

Another note on the topic is that Banned Actions are very rare for PCs and should only be used when they make the most logical sense for the species in question. If you don't want LotR style Dwarves and you think a dwarf is simply a short human, re-write them to reflect the changes.

I won't really get into the longsword/greatsword debate other than to say there is a reason that longswords (a very broad definition btw) were more popular throughout history around the world than greatswords. Only someone who is a true master of the greatsword is going to be more effective with their greatsword than someone that is even mediocre with using a longsword two handed. JMHO.

Overall, I like the FC system. It has a lot going for it. However, like already mentioned, if you want a game system specifically for detailed tactical combat where every member of the party is on even footing in a combat - stick with 4E.

[coyote6]

Originally Posted by Khaalis

First and foremost, as Psion already pointed out, keep in mind that in FC, you don’t make a skill check for a mundane function. You only make skill checks for advanced, complex actions. Example, a dwarf CAN jump to say “jump & skip” or to jump up and reach a higher shelf, or could swim a doggy paddle across a calm stream. A dwarf CAN’T however jump to clear a major clearance such as a running long jump

At what point does a jump or swim cease being "mundane" and become "advanced" or "complex", though? That's a hugely vague way to do it -- "banned, can't do it at all, except when you can".

Say there's a three or four foot wide crack in the PCs' way -- can a FC dwarf make it across? What if an assassin dumps a couple of venomous water snakes in the dog-paddling dwarf's path -- does the dwarf suddenly start drowning?

[litpho]

Originally Posted by coyote6

At what point does a jump or swim cease being "mundane" and become "advanced" or "complex", though? That's a hugely vague way to do it -- "banned, can't do it at all, except when you can".

It seems to me that this has been left deliberately vague to aid DMs (who can always answer questions like "does it look like a distance I can jump") in setting barriers to fit the story. With the added bonus of not attracting ruleslawyers who will argue the letter, not the spirit.

Say there's a three or four foot wide crack in the PCs' way -- can a FC dwarf make it across? What if an assassin dumps a couple of venomous water snakes in the dog-paddling dwarf's path -- does the dwarf suddenly start drowning?

I would say no to the jump. As far as the sudden combat in the water goes, the Dwarf will go under and start holding his breath. Which he can do for a number of rounds equal to his constitution. After that, he gets to make fortitude saves. Luckily, constitution (and thus fortitude saves) is one area where Dwarves do get bonuses.

Having said that, I'm not terribly fond of the no jumping rule (no swimming I'm fine with), if only for the amount of terrible dwarftossing jokes I see in my future.