Fantasy Craft Q&A Thread!

[Krensky]

Again, like everything in the game, it's based on your current values, not the values you had when you took the option.

I'd say "like almost everything in the game" (as some things specifically work differently as described in the rules), but otherwise this is correct.

Yes Pat.

[mach1.9pants]

Thanks for the reply, I knew it had been answered but b*ggered if I could find it! Maybe we need to lean on the Fantastic Mr Anderson to update the Master List a little

Arrgh what a dope I looked through Hero not Grimoire where it is the first on the list 

[pawsplay]

For the purpose of Spell Library, do increases to Panache or Prudence count as Lifestyle? e.g. Wizard Specialty.

[Krensky]

For the purpose of Spell Library, do increases to Panache or Prudence count as Lifestyle? e.g. Wizard Specialty.

Hmmm... Interesting question.

The simple answer would be yes. This does make the Wizard an even stronger specialty then it is at first blush.

There are other ways to read it, primarily that Lifestyle is not the sum of Prudence and Panache.

Hmmm... My first reaction is to allow it to work the way you're asking.

[Crafty_Pat]

Catching up on a couple things...

1. Drake Armor: It's a fair argument that the drake armor upgrade isn't all that great, especially since a) each of the species armor upgrades is intended to be a form of craftsmanship you can apply to armor meant to be worn by any species, and b) there are two outright errors on that stat line. So... the Disguise entry becomes "---" and the effect entry becomes "+2 gear bonus with Spellcasting" (checks, obviously).

2.  Constructs: The following is mostly clarification but there's some legitimate errata in there too. In total, this should alleviate the issues surrounding this (N)PC type.

• Constructs naturally heal vitality naturally but not wounds. To specify, wounds suffered by a construct never heal on their own.
• Constructs become inert at 0 wounds and only “die” when destroyed (i.e. are reduced to -25 wounds or worse).
• Constructs can be repaired with Crafting (and/or Medicine if a flesh construct) unless destroyed, but once a construct is destroyed it can only be brought back through magic (we'll be introducing one or more spell(s) in Spellbound to cover this but for the time being assume something a lot like Resurrection I+).
• In the case of Flesh Constructs (i.e. those with the Special Construction (Flesh) feat), Crafting and Medicine both work exactly the same way: they both use the Medicine skill check rules and all the same limitations apply to both skills. For example, in each day, you can use Crafting or Medicine to Mend a flesh construct but not both. You could use one skill to Mend and the other to Treat, or vice-versa, etc.

[Loremaster]

I'am happy on that update :-) Nice to get some feedback on all my questions...however, back to Drake Armor Update - i like it very much as it is the way I thought those upgrades would work - there are some more problems with this table.

"is intended to be a form of craftsmanship you can apply to armor meant to be worn by any species"

Yeah! BUT: This might cause some more updates:

1) The Effect "Large/Small only" should be removed according to this rules change. If there is a Medium Size Drake Armor there will be Medium Giant armor too?!Or a Medium Pech armor etc?!

=> Some of the "Effects" might on the Craftsmanship sound a bit contradictionary to the quote above. The effects seem to suggest that the Armor was made FOR the species it is named after and not BY the species. I think you tried to give every Species its Craftsmanship (nice idea) but were a bit in a hurry.

2) Another problem might be then the "Weight" increase of the Craftsmanship. I think it should not be there at all (or have a minor impact). LARGE/SMALL Armor will automatically have a weight increase following the base rules (1/2 or x3), it should not be the update that makes the armors heavier. It seems that all "Large only" and "Small only" "suffer" from the same rule..."Large only" = 100%,"Small only" = -50%.
I can't imagine that this was intented, it doesn't make sense at all. It even doesn't make sense if the Drake Update wasn't changed at atll.

3) Perhaps you might take a look back at the "Giant" upgrade and specifiy which Resistances it actually does increase. All Resistance from the Base Armor? All Resistances from the Species? All resistances? It's still some kind of a "let the GM handle it" thing...

[Mister Andersen]

Is it intedned that PC controlled NPC unborn can never benefit from the unborn weapons upgrade due to the rules on maximum complexity?

[Crafty_Alex]

Is it intedned that PC controlled NPC unborn can never benefit from the unborn weapons upgrade due to the rules on maximum complexity?

They can...but only in limited cases. There are a number of Complexity 5 weapons including:

Bullwhip
Club
Hook
Long, quarter, and short staves
Pole dagger
Throwing spear

The intent was to prevent PC controlled NPCs from becoming fountains of free gear. Most unborn seeking more sophisticated weapons will have to choose whether they want to have it built in or just use their hands.

[pawsplay]

I don't know if it's ideal, but you could give NPCs built-in weaponry as natural attacks.

[Sletchman]

What I'm planning on is removing the "scale" quality from all craftsmanship options, and making a Customisation that is simply "scale +1" and "scale -1" which can both be added more or less at will [and multiple times].

That way craftsmanship can represent the style of manifacture that the species is known for / good at, and stuff can be made for bigger / smaller creatures.  Plus it covers smaller then small and larger then large.  Some craftsmanship options will need an boost thou...

EDIT: Didn't realise this was the QnA threat, so this post probably doesn't really belong here.  My bad.

[Crafty_Pat]

1) The Effect "Large/Small only" should be removed according to this rules change. If there is a Medium Size Drake Armor there will be Medium Giant armor too?!Or a Medium Pech armor etc?!

That's fair. I can see all the Size restrictions except barding and Unborn craftsmanship going away. I'll want to discuss that with Alex, of course, but that's my gut feeling.

2) Another problem might be then the "Weight" increase of the Craftsmanship. I think it should not be there at all (or have a minor impact).

The weight modifiers on the armor upgrade table are intended to represent materials and methods used, not Size.

LARGE/SMALL Armor will automatically have a weight increase following the base rules (1/2 or x3),

Per the RAW, this rule actually only applies to barding, and though I'll have to think on it a bit more my kneejerk reaction is to strip that rule out. Weapon Scale doesn't have any impact on weapon weight right now, and I'm inclined to think that the benefits of tracking separate weights of larger or smaller weapons and armor is negligible at best.

3) Perhaps you might take a look back at the "Giant" upgrade and specifiy which Resistances it actually does increase. All Resistance from the Base Armor? All Resistances from the Species? All resistances? It's still some kind of a "let the GM handle it" thing...

That line should probably read "+2 to base armor Resistances"

[pawsplay]

LARGE/SMALL Armor will automatically have a weight increase following the base rules (1/2 or x3),

Per the RAW, this rule actually only applies to barding, and though I'll have to think on it a bit more my kneejerk reaction is to strip that rule out. Weapon Scale doesn't have any impact on weapon weight right now, and I'm inclined to think that the benefits of tracking separate weights of larger or smaller weapons and armor is negligible at best.

The note by the asterisk at the top of page 174, under the table, suggests it is the default rule for all armor.

[Crafty_Pat]

LARGE/SMALL Armor will automatically have a weight increase following the base rules (1/2 or x3),

Per the RAW, this rule actually only applies to barding, and though I'll have to think on it a bit more my kneejerk reaction is to strip that rule out. Weapon Scale doesn't have any impact on weapon weight right now, and I'm inclined to think that the benefits of tracking separate weights of larger or smaller weapons and armor is negligible at best.

The note by the asterisk at the top of page 174, under the table, suggests it is the default rule for all armor.

Ah yes. Will ponder. More soon.

[bainard]

The dwarf species origin ability thick hide reads:

Thick Hide 3:  You're considered to be wearing partial armor that provides Damage Reduction 3.  This DR does not stack with other armor (only the best protection applies).  [deleted text on stacking thick hide]

My question is, how does this interact with the basic combat tree armor basics/mastery/supremacy?  Armor basics would do nothing, apparently, but does a dwarf with armor mastery have DR 4 and immunity to the Coup de Grace action?  Does a dwarf with all three have a permanent DR5 and immunity to Coup de Grace actions and sneak attack damage?  How about NPCs (dwarves or other mobs) with DR that take these feats as an NPC quality?

[Crafty_Pat]

The dwarf species origin ability thick hide reads:

Thick Hide 3:  You're considered to be wearing partial armor that provides Damage Reduction 3.  This DR does not stack with other armor (only the best protection applies).  [deleted text on stacking thick hide]

My question is, how does this interact with the basic combat tree armor basics/mastery/supremacy?  Armor basics would do nothing, apparently, but does a dwarf with armor mastery have DR 4 and immunity to the Coup de Grace action?  Does a dwarf with all three have a permanent DR5 and immunity to Coup de Grace actions and sneak attack damage?  

EDIT: Whoops, I misread. Thick hide being armor, the feats can be applied to it, granting the benefits you describe.

How about NPCs (dwarves or other mobs) with DR that take these feats as an NPC quality?

Depends on where the NPCs gain the DR from. If it's gained from arnor, then thick hide doesn't stack with it.