Fantasy Craft Q&A Thread!

[Doublebond]

The updated PDF will probably, maybe, be out in the next two weeks. 

[Deral]

Reading all your postings regarding Spellbound in the "What Do Folks Want In a Magic System?" thread, I had a question come up, though I understand you might not be able to answer it right at this time:

~900 spells is a lot of spells, I'm sure you intend to list them purely alphabetically (I seem to remember a long discussion of people who like spells listed by level, then alphabetically), but how do you intend to do the tables? Broken up by School/Discipline like the other Spellbound pieces, or grouped together like FC, or something else, entirely?

[Crafty_Pat]

Reading all your postings regarding Spellbound in the "What Do Folks Want In a Magic System?" thread, I had a question come up, though I understand you might not be able to answer it right at this time:

~900 spells is a lot of spells, I'm sure you intend to list them purely alphabetically (I seem to remember a long discussion of people who like spells listed by level, then alphabetically), but how do you intend to do the tables? Broken up by School/Discipline like the other Spellbound pieces, or grouped together like FC, or something else, entirely?

At present the tables are presented by School and Discipline, and for spell descriptions for all Schools and Disciplines to be listed alphabetically in one master chapter.

While the latter is probably non-negotiable - we can't possibly print the spells multiple times (there are simply too many) and a universal alphabetical approach for full descriptions makes the most sense for the most people - we may include alternate tables, if we have the space and development time.

[Deral]

Reading all your postings regarding Spellbound in the "What Do Folks Want In a Magic System?" thread, I had a question come up, though I understand you might not be able to answer it right at this time:

~900 spells is a lot of spells, I'm sure you intend to list them purely alphabetically (I seem to remember a long discussion of people who like spells listed by level, then alphabetically), but how do you intend to do the tables? Broken up by School/Discipline like the other Spellbound pieces, or grouped together like FC, or something else, entirely?

At present the tables are presented by School and Discipline, and for spell descriptions for all Schools and Disciplines to be listed alphabetically in one master chapter.

While the latter is probably non-negotiable - we can't possibly print the spells multiple times (there are simply too many) and a universal alphabetical approach for full descriptions makes the most sense for the most people - we may include alternate tables, if we have the space and development time.

Yeah, I didn't expect much room for repetition with a spell list that long, the only real variation I thought might show up would be listing by Discipline, then Alphabetically, maybe divided up by their respective School-Tables, but even that might run into extra navigation issues.

But really, the first part was the important one, just wondering how all the spells were going to be listed, as-is with FC and the Mage the listed alphabetically only for both table and description works, once we get specialists out, then it'd become a down-right scavenger hunt without something like what you described.

[Dhampire]

Reading all your postings regarding Spellbound in the "What Do Folks Want In a Magic System?" thread, I had a question come up, though I understand you might not be able to answer it right at this time:

~900 spells is a lot of spells, I'm sure you intend to list them purely alphabetically (I seem to remember a long discussion of people who like spells listed by level, then alphabetically), but how do you intend to do the tables? Broken up by School/Discipline like the other Spellbound pieces, or grouped together like FC, or something else, entirely?

At present the tables are presented by School and Discipline, and for spell descriptions for all Schools and Disciplines to be listed alphabetically in one master chapter.

While the latter is probably non-negotiable - we can't possibly print the spells multiple times (there are simply too many) and a universal alphabetical approach for full descriptions makes the most sense for the most people - we may include alternate tables, if we have the space and development time.

Yeah, I didn't expect much room for repetition with a spell list that long, the only real variation I thought might show up would be listing by Discipline, then Alphabetically, maybe divided up by their respective School-Tables, but even that might run into extra navigation issues.

But really, the first part was the important one, just wondering how all the spells were going to be listed, as-is with FC and the Mage the listed alphabetically only for both table and description works, once we get specialists out, then it'd become a down-right scavenger hunt without something like what you described.

I'm sure if the need is there for extra tables, that those might show up as fan submissions.

[Deral]

I'm sure if the need is there for extra tables, that those might show up as fan submissions.

Right- I'm not really concerned, just curious.

[mind flayer]

I'm sure if the need is there for extra tables, that those might show up as fan submissions.

Right- I'm not really concerned, just curious.

2000th reply.  Congrats

Posting in an epic thread.

[Sletchman]

The one thing I currently think was done better in That Other Roleplaying Game [or perhaps that other, other roleplaying game, because I'm not referring to TORG] is their spell listing at the start of the spells chapter.  If it was done like this, I'd a happy guy.  I actually prefer it to a chart.

Once my holidays kick in, along side my epic post apocolyptic mastercraft setting I'm writing, I plan on writing a list in that style for Fantasy Craft's existing spell list.

[Mister Andersen]

When using Master's Touch, can you apply specific weapon tricks to your unarmed attacks or is it just generic melee tricks you can use?

[Crafty_Alex]

When using Master's Touch, can you apply specific weapon tricks to your unarmed attacks or is it just generic melee tricks you can use?

Considering the text of Master's Touch II, which allows you to cross specific melee tricks to any weapon, I would say generic only.

[Crafty_Pat]

The one thing I currently think was done better in That Other Roleplaying Game [or perhaps that other, other roleplaying game, because I'm not referring to TORG] is their spell listing at the start of the spells chapter.  If it was done like this, I'd a happy guy.  I actually prefer it to a chart.

This is the alternate front-runner at this point.

[Kerebrus]

more on weapons, size, scale, and handedness.

Another week comes and goes, and another question comes up.  More of an anticipatory question, as our session ended before our big fight.

Assuming that we can vanquish our next foe, the treasure will include an artifact giant scale Warhammer.  The table 4.19 (Blunt) entry for the Warhammer lists it as being Small / 2 handed.  Our Giant Soldier is eyeballing the Warhammer for his own use but is not sure if he would be able to wield it one handed or not.  Scaled up the weapon would be Medium sized, which should still be one handed for the Giant.  But it is listed as 2 handed.  So you can imagine our confusion.

This is further complicated by our Giant Soldier having the full Shield Tree (Basics, Mastery, & Supremacy) and is understandably reluctant to cast those feats away, although the details of the artifact may make it more convincing.

[Deral]

more on weapons, size, scale, and handedness.

Another week comes and goes, and another question comes up.  More of an anticipatory question, as our session ended before our big fight.

Assuming that we can vanquish our next foe, the treasure will include an artifact giant scale Warhammer.  The table 4.19 (Blunt) entry for the Warhammer lists it as being Small / 2 handed.  Our Giant Soldier is eyeballing the Warhammer for his own use but is not sure if he would be able to wield it one handed or not.  Scaled up the weapon would be Medium sized, which should still be one handed for the Giant.  But it is listed as 2 handed.  So you can imagine our confusion.

This is further complicated by our Giant Soldier having the full Shield Tree (Basics, Mastery, & Supremacy) and is understandably reluctant to cast those feats away, although the details of the artifact may make it more convincing.

In FantasyCraft, I believe the number  of hands required to wield something is based off of that weapons design and how it is functionally wielded, not it's size. A Medium Warhammer is a warhammer scaled up for larger creatures (because it's normally small), a medium character could just barely still manage it, but with a large character proper usage needs 2 hands. Basically, coming into this game you need to forget other games' definition of weapon size, a "Small" weapon isn't one scaled for small characters, but one that's small by it's longest dimension. A Medium character can wield weapons up to "Medium" size, a small character can wield them up to Small size, and a Large one can wield Large weapons, handedness is entirely divorced from it.

That being said, I believe Alex or Pat mentioned this would be clarified or possibly altered somehow in the Errata, so you might also wait to see what they have to say on the matter.

[Crafty_Alex]

Upshot - A character can weild a weapon equal to or smaller than his Size. A weapon's Size refers to its place in the overall scale (everything in our game is on the same Size scale), not whom it is intended for. Handedness does not change with Size shifts, either in the character holding the item or the item itself (a Small or Medium or Enormous warhammer is 2-handed - all that changes is who can actually weild it).

Now, if you want to weild a 2 handed weapon one-handed, you'll want the Monkey's Grip stance from Spear Basics

[pawsplay]

more on weapons, size, scale, and handedness.

Another week comes and goes, and another question comes up.  More of an anticipatory question, as our session ended before our big fight.

Assuming that we can vanquish our next foe, the treasure will include an artifact giant scale Warhammer.  The table 4.19 (Blunt) entry for the Warhammer lists it as being Small / 2 handed.  Our Giant Soldier is eyeballing the Warhammer for his own use but is not sure if he would be able to wield it one handed or not.  Scaled up the weapon would be Medium sized, which should still be one handed for the Giant.  But it is listed as 2 handed.  So you can imagine our confusion.

This is further complicated by our Giant Soldier having the full Shield Tree (Basics, Mastery, & Supremacy) and is understandably reluctant to cast those feats away, although the details of the artifact may make it more convincing.

If you want a giant's warhammer that can be used as treasure, I'd just scale it to Large, add lightweight, and say that's what the giant used. Presumably it's just a bit of good luck that it's scaled light enough that a smaller creature can get their hands around the grip.