Fantasycraft?

[Seharvepernfan]

Anybody else here have it? Anybody played it before?

I bought it recently in PDF form and I've been looking through it every now and then. I still haven't wrapped my head around it (it's quite a bit more complicated than D&D, and poorly formatted, sadly), but overall I'd say it's a superior game, mechanics-wise. The rules tend to make more sense, and it is much more balanced (as far as I can tell). It is lower powered than D&D, though, despite classes going from 1-20 (it feels more like E6). One of the things I like about D&D is how high-fantasy it can get; fantasycraft doesn't seem to do it, at least not as much.

Still, some things about it just make me look back at D&D and shake my head (I particularly like it's armor rules).

Fantasycraft discussion thread?

[aidenn0]

Anybody else here have it? Anybody played it before?

I bought it recently in PDF form and I've been looking through it every now and then. I still haven't wrapped my head around it (it's quite a bit more complicated than D&D, and poorly formatted, sadly), but overall I'd say it's a superior game, mechanics-wise. The rules tend to make more sense, and it is much more balanced (as far as I can tell). It is lower powered than D&D, though, despite classes going from 1-20 (it feels more like E6).

I DMed my first FantasyCraft game this past summer. We knew we'd only have about 8 sessions, so I just said everyone would level after each adventure, as I wanted to see what the lever progressions were like. We all had a blast; at every single level, each class gets *something* and the Feats make the 3.5 PHB look like a joke. Spellcasters are slightly less powerful per-spell, but can cast every single round, and divine casters are completely different, all of which are significant improvements IMO (we didn't have a Priest in our group though, so haven't playtested that one).

Interestingly enough, the combat section is much shorter than 3/3.5/Pathfinder as most of the combat options are class abilities, skill usage, or feat based. You can't even charge without a feat. This makes the basic combat rules much simpler, with the exception of the damage rules.



One of the things I like about D&D is how high-fantasy it can get; fantasycraft doesn't seem to do it, at least not as much.

While it's slightly less *specialized* on a high-fantasy setting, it's quite adept at it. I just think the various settings layed out in supplemental material avoid that as D&D is the 800lb gorilla in that room. The one place it doesn't do as well as D&D is with evil PCs. The mechanics are centered around the idea of you becoming famous heroes, so need some adjustment for that (In our setting the party was operating in legally shady areas of a large metropolis, so I replaced the "Heroic" renown with an "Underworld" renown, and came up with appropriate tables for that). I personally find the limits on magic-item ownership to fit the high-fantasy setting better; I don't think I've ever read a novel where the hero walks down to the market and trades in his +1 longsword for a +3 longsword.



Still, some things about it just make me look back at D&D and shake my head (I particularly like it's armor rules).

YMMV, but I find the magic system to be this way. Look at any list of T1 classes for D&D and they are all magic users. The individual spells are less powerful, but doing away with vancian magic means you will never have a case of "Darn, no spell to use, I guess I'll fire a crossbow and hope for a 20." The Cleric is done away with entirely and rebuilt as the Priest which isn't just a wizard with a different spell list and armor and spontaneous healing, but rather a fairly unique class. Also, every single base class gets something cool at level 14 as kind of a reward for not picking a PrC.

There are a few RAW rules that are completely broken (One of my players tried to buy a diminutive tower shield for his giant, as it gives you *exactly* the same defense bonus as an appropriately sized one, and is cheaper, with the only penalty being to when you try to shield bash with it).



Fantasycraft discussion thread?
Yes please.

[The Random NPC]

I personally find the limits on magic-item ownership to fit the high-fantasy setting better; I don't think I've ever read a novel where the hero walks down to the market and trades in his +1 longsword for a +3 longsword.

Instead, if you find too many magic items, you just give them away because of reasons.

[MirddinEmris]

Instead, if you find too many magic items, you just give them away because of reasons.

Or loose them, or not find them at all. It' very cinematic, do you remember a book where hero hoards magic items?



One of the things I like about D&D is how high-fantasy it can get; fantasycraft doesn't seem to do it, at least not as much.

I don't think it's true. High-fantasy doesn't necessarily means ability to create your own planes of existance, and the default FC (unless you remove Sorcery and Miracles campaign qualities) is exactly high-fantasy game, it's just the peak of power is lower than in dnd (but floor is also higher). What exactly high fantasy is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy)

It is also worth noting degree of customization form campaign that campaign qualities mechanic if offering. It possible to play grim-dark, low fantasy, or even just medieval real world with the right qualities. And balance doesn't crumble if you remove magic or magic items. System is extremely modular, like Lego :)

[MirddinEmris]

The one place it doesn't do as well as D&D is with evil PCs. The mechanics are centered around the idea of you becoming famous heroes, so need some adjustment for that (In our setting the party was operating in legally shady areas of a large metropolis, so I replaced the "Heroic" renown with an "Underworld" renown, and came up with appropriate tables for that). I personally find the limits on magic-item ownership to fit the high-fantasy setting better; I don't think I've ever read a novel where the hero walks down to the market and trades in his +1 longsword for a +3 longsword.

There are a few RAW rules that are completely broken (One of my players tried to buy a diminutive tower shield for his giant, as it gives you *exactly* the same defense bonus as an appropriately sized one, and is cheaper, with the only penalty being to when you try to shield bash with it).


I don't think that Reputation is made for heroic PC, the three track that are given in the book (Military, Noble and Heroic) are more or less examples and it is said that you can make different tracks if you want one (for example in my Spelljammer game i made Criminal and Mercantile renowns to reflect playstyle). Reputation is neutral term exactly becasue of this.

Also, i don't think that you can make diminutive tower shield, since you can't decrease damage dice lower than d4.

[The Random NPC]

Or loose them, or not find them at all. It' very cinematic, do you remember a book where hero hoards magic items?

I was specifically referring to the in book example of giving away your loot, over all it's a decent game, I just don't like how minimal the feats feel. Like Aidenn0 said, you need a feat to be able to charge. I don't like that.

EDIT: It also doesn't help that anytime someone says they'll run a game, they end up canceling the day of.

[Honest Tiefling]

I am intrigued. Anyone care to put in the effort to sell me on this?

[aidenn0]

I am intrigued. Anyone care to put in the effort to sell me on this?

I'll bite.
Things I like

It focuses on PCs as Epic/Cinematic Heroes

D&D has the *fluff* for that, but the crunch sometimes ends up working against that. It retains the familiar d20 tactical combat feel while also adding rules that help with storytelling. Some examples:

Some abilities are usable N times per scene or N times per session. Ultimately as a DM, that's how I break the plot down, so it's nice that the rules work that way too.

It just makes sense to me that young heroes who suddenly get fame and wealth will blow a lot of that money on booze and such (or the stoic do-gooder will give away to charity) and one of your stats is your "prudence" which dictates how much of your loot goes into your long-term stash; all the rest is used up in any character appropriate way.

Also NPCs come in two forms: standard characters and special characters. Nearly all standard characters can be dispatched in a couple hits from a PC (they actually don't have any hitpoints, just a save vs. damage), and genrally come in groups. Special characters come singly and have the FC equivalent of hitpoints. So yes, the RAW codifies the Inverse Ninja Principle.

The magic system is completely overhauled
I know people who have gotten good at gaming Vancian magic. I don't know anybody who actually *likes* it on its merits. This eliminates that with a spell-points based system. Furthermore D&D Clerics and Mages are clearly broken. This makes an attempt to overhaul. We haven't played past level 9 yet, so jury is still out on how good of a job.

In particular, the Priest (closest to D&D Cleric) class is not exactly a spellcaster. Instead the domains (now called "Paths") grant specific powers, and at certain levels you advance (i.e. get access to the next level of powers for one of your paths). These are sometimes spell-like abilities but could also be feats or class abilities from other classes.

Non-combat abilities that don't suck
D&D often ends up feeling like tactical combat with a bit of a plot. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's really where it's design leads it. FC has several non-combat targeted classes, feats, and class options. These can vary from extra spending money for bribes and necessities to having the authorities detain someone for you without cause. I really find that the mechanics for you to be able to hinder your enemies or aid your allies before combat even starts are greatly expanded.

Plenty of fighter customizations in the base book
Fighter/Barbarian/Monk are all kind of meh in 3.5e; it's not that they suck it's just that they are fairly uninteresting. The Soldier class in FC, combined with the right optimization of feats is almost certainly the answer to "I want a combat X specialist" for any X. The one exception is probably mounted combat, where there is a Lancer class that gets an animal-companion sort of mount. I've messed around with various combat oriented builds and come up with a half-dozen very different but useful combat builds when just targeting Level 5.

There are also the Captain class which is decent fighting combined with "make everyone else better" and the Assassin class which basically specializes in sneaking in, killing exactly one person and making it out alive again.

Finally the Combat Feats are far more numerous and the most powerful ones are typically at the end of a themed 3 feat progression (Basics/Mastery/Supremacy), with Basics usually being good enough at low-levels that it doesn't feel like a feat tax. A big problem with Fighters in 3e was that there were so few good combat feats that the Fighter bonus feats felt kind of useless.

Everyone gets something cool they can do, and it's not hard for the DM to make sure they have a chance to do it at least once per session
Pretty much every class gets a few fun 1/session or 1/scene abilities, aside from their go-to abilities.

Base rulebook character creation options are varied
Huge variation in species (including rules for PC magical constructs). Humans get something called "talents" which is a background that gives them bonuses on par with any of the non-human species.

What's both good and bad
Flexibility
This, combined with the whole cinematic heroic feel are what I would call the two defining characteristics of the system.

There are a lot of optional rules (e.g. having PC priests or PC spellcasters). This is really nice, but there is no equivalent to the 3.5e core setting. I basically ripped-off parts of that for our game (including the deity list). The good news is that many things that would be homebrew in other d20 systems can just be "We use campaign qualities X Y & Z" but the downside is that no two FC games by different DMs will be the same, since if you ignore *all* the optional rules, you're left with something quite bland.

What's bad
Worlds worst organized rulebook
In general finding even a rule that you already know exists is hard. Since many of the combat options are either class-abilities or feats, they aren't in the Combat section. I insisted on all my players knowing how *their* abilities worked as I was not going to look it up in the middle of combat. For NPCs, I had to create them in advance and Ctrl-F through the PDF to find their ability descriptions, then cut-and-paste into some printout notes. I didn't do that for one session and it was *painful*. This system is about as crunchy as 3.5e, but the wacky layout, combined with the very limited index makes finding anything hard. Good news is that the GM screen is printable from their website, and has a lot of the tables you need.

Definitely not as loophole free as 3.5
A rules lawyer could ruin this system more than even 3e. Common sense is needed to prevent some forms of nonsensical min-maxing

If there's interest, I can do a couple of posts on the races and the base classes, and a few character builds.

[The Random NPC]

Definitely not as loophole free as 3.5
A rules lawyer could ruin this system more than even 3e. Common sense is needed to prevent some forms of nonsensical min-maxing

I hadn't really noticed that, do you mind pointing out the most egregious examples?

[MirddinEmris]

I was specifically referring to the in book example of giving away your loot, over all it's a decent game, I just don't like how minimal the feats feel. Like Aidenn0 said, you need a feat to be able to charge. I don't like that.

EDIT: It also doesn't help that anytime someone says they'll run a game, they end up canceling the day of.

Actually, feats here are very good, every one of the weapon's feats is giving you small ability and a trick/stance, all of them are very thematic and there is no useless feats like Dodge or Weapon Focus.

[MirddinEmris]

I'll bite.
Things I like

It focuses on PCs as Epic/Cinematic Heroes


Also NPCs come in two forms: standard characters and special characters. Nearly all standard characters can be dispatched in a couple hits from a PC (they actually don't have any hitpoints, just a save vs. damage), and genrally come in groups. Special characters come singly and have the FC equivalent of hitpoints. So yes, the RAW codifies the Inverse Ninja Principle.

Also, there is a "mook" quality that makes standard characters loose automaticall against damage.




Non-combat abilities that don't suck
D&D often ends up feeling like tactical combat with a bit of a plot. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's really where it's design leads it. FC has several non-combat targeted classes, feats, and class options. These can vary from extra spending money for bribes and necessities to having the authorities detain someone for you without cause. I really find that the mechanics for you to be able to hinder your enemies or aid your allies before combat even starts are greatly expanded.

Don't forget ery interesting system for spending your Reputation on Favors, which is a very solid foundation for any cmapaign that involes intrigue and politics.




Plenty of fighter customizations in the base book
Fighter/Barbarian/Monk are all kind of meh in 3.5e; it's not that they suck it's just that they are fairly uninteresting. The Soldier class in FC, combined with the right optimization of feats is almost certainly the answer to "I want a combat X specialist" for any X. The one exception is probably mounted combat, where there is a Lancer class that gets an animal-companion sort of mount. I've messed around with various combat oriented builds and come up with a half-dozen very different but useful combat builds when just targeting Level 5.

I've been playing with this system for a couple of years and still can come up with some interesting combination despite the fat that amount of content isn't very large




Base rulebook character creation options are varied
Huge variation in species (including rules for PC magical constructs). Humans get something called "talents" which is a background that gives them bonuses on par with any of the non-human species.

Basically it's like a human is ~20 different species, which is a good thing if you plying a campaign in which only humans exists, because it still allows choices.




What's bad
Worlds worst organized rulebook
In general finding even a rule that you already know exists is hard. Since many of the combat options are either class-abilities or feats, they aren't in the Combat section. I insisted on all my players knowing how *their* abilities worked as I was not going to look it up in the middle of combat. For NPCs, I had to create them in advance and Ctrl-F through the PDF to find their ability descriptions, then cut-and-paste into some printout notes. I didn't do that for one session and it was *painful*. This system is about as crunchy as 3.5e, but the wacky layout, combined with the very limited index makes finding anything hard. Good news is that the GM screen is printable from their website, and has a lot of the tables you need.


IDK, i found it pretty nice, you just have to think of it as an encyclopedia, not a step-by-step character creation book. And the index is pretty good, so you can find what you want pretty quickly. O course, YMMV

Also, the NPC creation can be hard, but on the other hand it allows you to adjust already created ery quickly and customize them to a high degree (also there is a tons of already created NPC and monsters in hte book). There is an online NPC creation tool for Fantasy Craft, with it, the procces is very quick and easy.




Definitely not as loophole free as 3.5
A rules lawyer could ruin this system more than even 3e. Common sense is needed to prevent some forms of nonsensical min-maxing

If there's interest, I can do a couple of posts on the races and the base classes, and a few character builds.


[/QUOTE]

Not really, and i speak as a rules lawyer of a high degree :) If you have some questions about mechanics you deem broken, you can address it to me, i'll try to answer them.


Also:



No RPG works without the GM and players wanting it to work — especially not a toolkit.
The best of us stumble over rules that seem to be doing something irrational, or implausible, or just not fun. This
is never any designer’s goal but language and game design being such fluid, subjective things it’s bound to happen
every so often, especially in a game that actively leaves the rules open to the needs of the audience. The all-important
factor in these cases — the one you should observe over all others — is that you must want the rule to function. If you
look for holes you’ll find them — no amount of future-proofing, playtesting, or editing can safeguard against a desire
to break the game, and no game can aspire to perfect clarity and balance without utterly sacrificing utility.

No RPG works without rules calls.
This one’s short and simple: every RPG system is built with the central conceit that rules must (frequently) be
interpreted to fit the situation. The same rule can be applied two ways in two situations, perhaps with different
modifiers and maybe even with mutually exclusive results. We embrace this philosophy when writing for Fantasy Craft
and intentionally leave some things open for this reason.

No RPG works without definition and restriction.
The limits of what’s plausible are different for every group, even those sharing the same setting. Some groups
prefer over-the-top results and outlandish possibilities, while others are more reserved. Again, to support all groups,
Fantasy Craft leaves a lot open — including a lot of toys available to players. It’s everyone’s job, including the players’,
to exercise restraint appropriate to the setting, story, and the tolerances of everyone at the table (you might want to go
back and read the first pointer again as a refresher).

[The Random NPC]

Actually, feats here are very good, every one of the weapon's feats is giving you small ability and a trick/stance, all of them are very thematic and there is no useless feats like Dodge or Weapon Focus.

I didn't mean to imply that they weren't good, just that they feel like they change very little to me.

[aidenn0]

I didn't mean to imply that they weren't good, just that they feel like they change very little to me.

I'm going to have to say I agree with The Random NPC; Requiring a feat to charge is a feature, not a bug. The charge feat sequence is good enough that many mêlée characters will take it, but other's won't. Again, the advantage versus the 3.5 core rules is that the number of combat feats that were good enough to take was small enough that the Fighter's large number of combat feats was an underpowered class feature.

[The Random NPC]

I'm going to have to say I agree with The Random NPC; Requiring a feat to charge is a feature, not a bug. The charge feat sequence is good enough that many mêlée characters will take it, but other's won't. Again, the advantage versus the 3.5 core rules is that the number of combat feats that were good enough to take was small enough that the Fighter's large number of combat feats was an underpowered class feature.

It kind of seems like we're saying two different things. I'm not saying the feats are good or bad, but I am saying that you need them to do some pretty basic stuff, or that I perceive them to change very little of the game. Now, I might be very mistaken, but either way, that is a bad impression to leave on a prospective player.

[MirddinEmris]

It kind of seems like we're saying two different things. I'm not saying the feats are good or bad, but I am saying that you need them to do some pretty basic stuff, or that I perceive them to change very little of the game. Now, I might be very mistaken, but either way, that is a bad impression to leave on a prospective player.

Actually, without feats you can still do much more than melee in dnd, and even more with them, so i just can't agree with you. And charge in FC is different from charge in DnD (yeah, you've guess it, it's better :) )

[Seharvepernfan]

Well, I have several things I want to talk about, but I'll just go with a couple for now.

Has anyone ever seen or played in a dungeon in FC? I'm curious what it all would look like from the DM's side of the screen.

Giants, in FC, do not have a strength bonus. I don't know of any size bonus to "maneuvers". They do have greater reach, more hit points ("vitality"), larger weapons (larger die, I believe), resistance to crits, improved stability, and higher speed. Considering that they are 10-15ft tall, does this really do them justice?

edit: also, what I meant with the high fantasy stuff is that it doesn't really seem like characters get as ....I'm not sure. In D&D, at 15th level, you're flying, you've got tons of magic items, you can break down castles; it's almost more like a comic book hero battle than a fight between knights or whatever. You know what I mean? In FC, it never gets beyond, say, lord of the rings.

[Milodiah]

If you have a major problem with formatting, it's actually rather helpful to try building yourself a cheat-sheet. Not only does it give you a cheat-sheet at the end, it helps you understand what you're looking at as you try to skim through and put mangled factors into a reasonable order.

I did a bit of this with Rifts, which probably holds the title of "Most Convoluted Sourcebook in Tabletop RPGs", making the fact that it's stupidly complex even more frustrating.

[MirddinEmris]

Well, I have several things I want to talk about, but I'll just go with a couple for now.

Has anyone ever seen or played in a dungeon in FC? I'm curious what it all would look like from the DM's side of the screen.

Giants, in FC, do not have a strength bonus. I don't know of any size bonus to "maneuvers". They do have greater reach, more hit points ("vitality"), larger weapons (larger die, I believe), resistance to crits, improved stability, and higher speed. Considering that they are 10-15ft tall, does this really do them justice?

edit: also, what I meant with the high fantasy stuff is that it doesn't really seem like characters get as ....I'm not sure. In D&D, at 15th level, you're flying, you've got tons of magic items, you can break down castles; it's almost more like a comic book hero battle than a fight between knights or whatever. You know what I mean? In FC, it never gets beyond, say, lord of the rings.

Yes, it does. There is a size bonus, it's +2 per category for Trip, Bull Rush, Grapple (see Actions in Combat chapter) and they are also onsidered huge for some of them (and Trample). Also, size does not affect vitality, it affects wounds. itality is something you gain with each level, wounds are changed only in specific circustances (like Great Fortitude feat). Damage from critical hits go straight to wounds, so giants really are tough (1.5 x Con value wounds).

Also, remember that in FC attributes matters less and it pays off to have well-rounded characters.


In D&D, at 15th level, you're flying, you've got tons of magic items, you can break down castles

Flight is not hard to achieve here and much easier for mundane. And yes, you can break down castles. I know i did :) Fights in FC are much more interesting than in DnD, especially if you are mundane. Unless you've played DnD as high optimized T1 (breaking action economy, defeating you foes without them having a chance to do something etc), you can do this in FC.

[Seharvepernfan]

Yes, it does. There is a size bonus, it's +2 per category for Trip, Bull Rush, Grapple (see Actions in Combat chapter) and they are also onsidered huge for some of them (and Trample). Also, size does not affect vitality, it affects wounds. itality is something you gain with each level, wounds are changed only in specific circustances (like Great Fortitude feat). Damage from critical hits go straight to wounds, so giants really are tough (1.5 x Con value wounds).

Also, remember that in FC attributes matters less and it pays off to have well-rounded characters.

Hmm. What got me started on giants was the thought that a giant soldier of the same level as a human soldier should stomp the human soldier (perhaps literally), but that didn't seem all that likely, given how similar their stats would be (obviously, I haven't mastered this system yet, so these are just impressions talking).


Flight is not hard to achieve here and much easier for mundane. And yes, you can break down castles. I know i did :) Fights in FC are much more interesting than in DnD, especially if you are mundane. Unless you've played DnD as high optimized T1 (breaking action economy, defeating you foes without them having a chance to do something etc), you can do this in FC.

Besides racial flight, how easily can non mages attain it? How about invisibility or teleportation?

[MirddinEmris]

Hmm. What got me started on giants was the thought that a giant soldier of the same level as a human soldier should stomp the human soldier (perhaps literally), but that didn't seem all that likely, given how similar their stats would be (obviously, I haven't mastered this system yet, so these are just impressions talking).



Besides racial flight, how easily can non mages attain it? How about invisibility or teleportation?

He could stomp. He has Trample :) Besides, do you really wish to play with a system where one race can just stomp members of other race of the same level?

There is a species/specialty/talent builder, each origin is worth 7 design points. There is a wiki with more information (http://sletchweb.wikidot.com/fc-origin-creation)

You can have flight through Species feats, as far as i know any race have at least one or two options. You can have a mount with flight, of course and since mount is an NPC, scaling is automatic. You can take a Path that will grant you spell or ability to fly. And of course, you can have magic items that will grant you ability to cast fly spell.

Teleportation (long-range one) is in the domain of magic only as far as i know.

Invisibility isn't a necessity for a sneaky character, since it only grants you ability to become hidden if you move more than 10ft. It's nice to have, sure, but it doesn't replace rogue like in DnD

[aidenn0]

If you have a major problem with formatting, it's actually rather helpful to try building yourself a cheat-sheet. Not only does it give you a cheat-sheet at the end, it helps you understand what you're looking at as you try to skim through and put mangled factors into a reasonable order.

I did a bit of this with Rifts, which probably holds the title of "Most Convoluted Sourcebook in Tabletop RPGs", making the fact that it's stupidly complex even more frustrating.

Ah yes, Rifts is worse.

Here's one example that happened a couple times in FC:

I was curious which skills took an armor check penalty, here's how I figured it out.

Look it up in index: Nope
Open PDF, search for "Armor Check"
This says "Physical Skill Checks"
Search for "Physical Skill": Nope
Search for "Physical" found "Physical Attributes" are Str,Dex,Con
So I guess ACP applies to any skill checks that use Str, Dex, Con?


The odd thing is other times things are *very* will listed; e.g. for nearly all NPC attributes granted by origins, it spells out the entire description.

[aidenn0]

I hadn't really noticed that, do you mind pointing out the most egregious examples?

In retrospect, I think I'm actually wrong about that; I think I've just gotten better at rules breaking in the past 10 years. The pike *is* broken though; in my campaign I make it only usable in open areas (which works from a common-sense point of view as well).

[The Random NPC]

In retrospect, I think I'm actually wrong about that; I think I've just gotten better at rules breaking in the past 10 years. The pike *is* broken though; in my campaign I make it only usable in open areas (which works from a common-sense point of view as well).

It does seem pretty powerful, what with being able to use Polearm and Staff tricks with it and having 2 Reach.

[aidenn0]

It does seem pretty powerful, what with being able to use Polearm and Staff tricks with it and having 2 Reach.

Don't forget it's Large and disarm attempts are based on weapon size (making it better than any whip at disarming, even if you don't customize it with a hook).

[paddyfool]

House rule: weapons with the "lightweight" property count as one size smaller for disarm checks as well as for the requisite size of the user. Because iconic pike usage should be more about the long-range stabs than the disarms.

(It's a crude fix, I know... on the whole, I'm not really happy with the whole way weapon size factors into disarming, but it's one of very few real gripes I have).