Fantasy Craft Q&A Thread!

[Foghorn]

I know that space in the book was tight, so why did you Crafty Guys print the same feat three times?  Darting Weapon, Two Weapon Fighting, and Two Hit Combo all use the exact same Mechanics for the same effect.  The only difference is that they are in different feat trees.

Any by those feats being in different trees, different classes have easier access to them. For example, the Martial Artist cannot choose Two Weapon Fighting as one of his bonus feats, but the Soldier would be able to. Also, some abilities and effects get more uses by having feats from certain trees, so having Darting Weapon gets you an extra use of the Parry advanced action, but Two-Hit Combo and Two Weapon Fighting don't

[aegis]

I don't know if the issue has already been raised, but my research yielded nothing.

Well, I was just conceiving a weapon-destroying character and I fell upon the Hammer Mastery feat, which was exactly what I was looking for. Then, I went looking for a hammer and realized that the two most interesting ones were dealing non lethal damage. And since objects are not affected by non lethal damage, these weapons do not benefit from their own feat chain (and converting damage is really not a solution here).

That may or may not be a mistake, but I really feel this is a problem. Maybe something should be done for this in the errata*, but since I wasn't sure, I posted it here.

* About that, it may be just me, but I feel like a maul is much likely to deal lethal damage than a great club. After all, one is a war weapon with a stone head while the other is most probably a large wooden stick or even a small tree.

[aegis]

The question has been previously raised but I was wondering whether you intended to rephrase the Haggle description where Disposition is involved. Wouldn't it be simpler, from the player's perspective, to simply say that the PC (whose Disposition can hardly be guessed) makes a Haggle check modified by the NPC Disposition toward him, and the NPC makes an opposed Haggle check without any modifier? And as for any NPC-NPC interaction, well, it's GM's call so no rules are necessary.

[Crafty_Pat]

I don't know if the issue has already been raised, but my research yielded nothing.

Well, I was just conceiving a weapon-destroying character and I fell upon the Hammer Mastery feat, which was exactly what I was looking for. Then, I went looking for a hammer and realized that the two most interesting ones were dealing non lethal damage. And since objects are not affected by non lethal damage, these weapons do not benefit from their own feat chain (and converting damage is really not a solution here).

That may or may not be a mistake, but I really feel this is a problem. Maybe something should be done for this in the errata*, but since I wasn't sure, I posted it here.

Damage Conversion: page 209

[Crafty_Pat]

Prizes - We did not find a written mechanic for a prize that no one in the party is particularly interested in.  Selling it and redeeming it for its reputation cost (split among the party) is our current front runner of ideas.

That's a reasonable option, sure. There's even some supporting text on page 194 - it's framed around "buying" and "selling" Magic Items, which is where this kind of rule most often comes into play.

[Crafty_Pat]

The question has been previously raised but I was wondering whether you intended to rephrase the Haggle description where Disposition is involved. Wouldn't it be simpler, from the player's perspective, to simply say that the PC (whose Disposition can hardly be guessed) makes a Haggle check modified by the NPC Disposition toward him, and the NPC makes an opposed Haggle check without any modifier? And as for any NPC-NPC interaction, well, it's GM's call so no rules are necessary.

Some GMs will want to track (and even assign) player Dispositions and some won't. The current rules are simple and don't assume either approach.

[aegis]

Damage Conversion: page 209

Yes, I know, but still. Damage conversion implies a -4 to attack and only half damage. If that is the cost to gain the benefit of a feat supposed to double the damage inflicted upon objects, it really becomes suboptimal. The benefit of the feat does not even compensate the use of Damage conversion rules.

Some GMs will want to track (and even assign) player Dispositions and some won't. The current rules are simple and don't assume either approach.

Oh, I didn't know that was possible. Good to know.

[Crafty_Pat]

Oh, I didn't know that was possible. Good to know.

It's covered in the Disposition section (page 373).

[Crafty_Pat]

Page 205 - Attack Check Modifiers - Size is included as an attack check modifier (but then references affecting defense... odd).  And on 206 the size modifer is not included in a character's Defense.  This is a bit odd.  Does Fantasy Craft run contrary to the D&D roots here?  Do characters get a size modifer to Defense but not Attack?  Do two Huge critters just have a really easy time hitting one another while two diminutive critter flail about missing one another?

Size does indeed only impact Defense in Mastercraft. While that does translate to universally easier to hit big characters and universally hard to hit smaller characters, it also means you only have to apply the modifier once per character, at character creation, and it compensates for the rather substantial benefits and drawbacks Size applies elsewise (chiefly in the form of additional wounds).

[prototype00]

Speaking of which, I remember it mentioned in the past, but is the size increase from the species feat Truly Massive going to actually increase wounds?

prototype00

[Crafty_Pat]

Speaking of which, I remember it mentioned in the past, but is the size increase from the species feat Truly Massive going to actually increase wounds?

Size is being addressed in several ways across the system and as part of that we're retiring Truly Massive. It's simply not functional in any configuration currently in view.

[prototype00]

  I'm going to miss the increased bite damage die that drakes used to get. I do hope the revised edition adds as much as it seems to be taking away, otherwise I might stick to running Fantasycraft classic.

prototype00

[Crafty_Pat]

I think it does. We've gone out of our way to level things out across the book, focusing not only on ways to scale troublesome mechanics back but also to beef up some under-performers.

[Crafty_Alex]

I'm going to miss the increased bite damage die that drakes used to get. I do hope the revised edition adds as much as it seems to be taking away, otherwise I might stick to running Fantasycraft classic.

prototype00

We're not doing an across the board cutting back of the system, but we are doing a more careful job of balancing the options. IIRC, you were a big fan of natural attacks (I seem to recall threads of your uber Saurian martial artist who did 2d8 damage with each attack out of the box). Stuff like that made it clear to us how certain options that seemed good in theory quickly became dominant in certain situations (Size, Truly Massive, etc.). Overall, your characters will still get their schwa, but it may require slightly more investment or a slightly differnet route to get there (the Suarians' maxed out natural attacks cannot be achieved in 1 feat anymore, but they CAN benefit from Martial Arts and Master's Art), or in the case of truly broken options, just cut back to be in line (and thus fair to) other character builds and the longer term goals of the system.

[prototype00]

We shall see when the new edition comes out then. I hope I like it as much as I liked the original system.

prototype00