Spycraft Third edition Wishlist and Suggestions Mega-thread

[Sletchman]

@turnip: The rewording is pretty much the Spycraft 2.0 description of the condition, which is actually much simpler to use and ajudicate than the FC version because it's less wishy washy

I noticed that, but with the Mastercraft credo of simplification it could be as easy as:

Invisible: The character may not be targeted by awareness or perception checks.  If the character moves more then 10ft from his starting position during a round he instead becomes hidden until his next initiative count.

[Mister Andersen]

Except you can be targeted by those checks. Invisibility just means you can't be seen, it doesn't stop you being smelt or more commonly heard.

[Bill Whitmore]

I am trying to find out what is being argued here.

With invisible, if you move 10 or more feet, you become hidden.  Certain triggers taken while hidden will remove that condition, like attacking.  Then moving again will put you in the hidden state again.

If you are invisible, move up and just stand toe-to-toe in a slugging match with your opponent, then no, invisible is not going to impart any advantage.

Now, that's the way it works in the Fantasy Craft rulebook, but I can't figure out if you are unsure how it works or if you understand how it works but just don't like it.

[Mister Andersen]

According to the RAW I can't make a statue or a bridge or a stalled tank invisible to prevent it being seen by aerial recon or enemy artillery because the condition doesn't do anything unless you move.

I can't be in the corner of a featureless room and turn invisible to avoid being seen by the 100 nasty goblin soldiers trooping through it because I have to move to become hidden.

If I'm invisible in the common sense of the word -- see through, unseeable -- I'm still as easy for someone to hit as though I were visible if I don't move or the GC decides that suspecting someone invisible is skulking about is enough to render the the person no longer hidden, because once hidden goes away the invisible condition has no mechanical benefit.

The condition doesn't do anything unless you move at least 10 feet. That's illogical.

A condition needs to do something immediately upon coming into effect. It needs to immediately render you hidden or at the very least make it significantly harder for someone to see and/or attack you.

[Crafty_Alex]

Here's where I'm seeing the problem - everyone expects invisible to be a better version of hidden. However, hidden effectively grants "invisibility..."

A character is hidden from those who don’t know his location. They may not attack him, nor may they target him with skill checks that require line of sight.

The power of invisibility as a condition is that it lets you become hidden automatically should you move. But hidden and invisible absolutely cannot exist seperately, and that IMO is where the logical break is in your understanding.

According to the RAW I can't make a statue or a bridge or a stalled tank invisible to prevent it being seen by aerial recon or enemy artillery because the condition doesn't do anything unless you move.

I can't be in the corner of a featureless room and turn invisible to avoid being seen by the 100 nasty goblin soldiers trooping through it because I have to move to become hidden.

Point of order: to become hidden without a skill check. You can still attempt to Stash or Sneak in both these cases to become hidden.

If I'm invisible in the common sense of the word -- see through, unseeable -- I'm still as easy for someone to hit as though I were visible if I don't move or the GC decides that suspecting someone invisible is skulking about is enough to render the the person no longer hidden, because once hidden goes away the invisible condition has no mechanical benefit.

We're different from D&D in this respect, and have been since 2.0. Hidden is already unseeable in game terms. Also, you do not lose invisibility when you lose hidden - in fact, you can automatically regain hidden (and thus unseeability) by moving 10 feet again.

A condition needs to do something immediately upon coming into effect. It needs to immediately render you hidden or at the very least make it significantly harder for someone to see and/or attack you.

Becoming hidden renders you immediately unseeable. Becoming invisible - in a manor like, say, the Predator's stealth suit - is more of a continuous renewal of hidden.

[Mister Andersen]

As far as I know, no one's complained about the 2.0 version of the condition, but people on the boards have had some difficulty or another with the FC one since the first printing.

The 2.0 version of the condition is mechanically and conceptually more elegant than FC's version because it works without the requirement for superfluous skill checks -- I am not putting the bridge or tank or whathave you somewhere else (which is what a stash check does), I'm making it so that no one can see it but doing so without putting an obstructing object in place (using an obstructing object being what a sneak check does) -- and works the way pretty much the majority of the world's population would expect becoming invisible to work: it removes you from view the moment the condition starts (making it harder but not impossible to hit you) without requring movement, becoming even more effective at doing so once you've moved a bit.

The FC version is polarised: you can be located/hit (even when application of common sense says you shouldn't) or you can't be located/hit. The 2.0 is fuzzier: you're harder to locate/hit or you can't be located/hit.

[Crafty_Pat]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, Andersen. The rule functions as desired and nothing we've seen to date suggests we need to consider further errata.

[TheAuldGrump]

Moving on to a different topic - how should vehicles be handled?

SC2 has some very generic vehicles, a scattering of more specific vehicles, but nothing really approaching vehicle design rules.

Should S₃ have predesigned vehicles, with rules to customize them, adding machine guns to an Aston Martin, and allowing a Lotus to become a submersible?

Or vehicle design rules, allowing you to tinker with spaceships and helicopters, the Enterprise and the Nautilus?

My own inclination would be a compromise - the main rules having the predesigned vehicles, with rules for customizing them, and a supplement covering the nuts 'n' bolts of vehicle design.

The Auld Grump

[Gentry]

According to the RAW I can't make a statue or a bridge or a stalled tank invisible to prevent it being seen by aerial recon or enemy artillery because the condition doesn't do anything unless you move.

May I suggest the Chameleon II ability, for "hidden while stationary" goodness. It's even cheaper than invisibility.

[doneatrawhagis]

Would like a Drunken Boxing Fighting style. Also some gun tricks would be cool too. Though I cant think of anything more than wild west shoot outs and a shot gun butt to the head and a double tap in the face.

[Grimace]

The biggest issue I've found with running a Spycraft game is that players seem overwhelmed by the system.  Anything to better clarify rules or simplify them will help draw players to the system.  Here's a few suggestions.

• Simplify the gear/gadget rules.  This is the #1 issue for my players.  While the various gear/gadgets are cool, a large amount of time and effort is put into gearing up.  This is time that is better spent, IMO, on the mission itself.
• At times it is difficult for a character and some times a GM to determine which skill is best for an action.  Perhaps adding a more descriptive explanation of the skills would help.  I'll have to crack open my 2.0 rulebook.

Really I'll have to think more on this, but anything you can do to make the game flow more smoothly, would be great. 

[Mister Andersen]

I think that to a large extent Master/Fantasy Craft has cracked that, as I find the skill system generally easier to use than 2.0.

A lot of people I've talked to about 2.0 didn't like the pick 'n' mix approach to the Attribute/Skill combo; they felt it was a bad attempt at aping something like the approach of the Story Teller system, which defeated the "one value to rule them all" simplicity at the core of d20.

[Grimace]

I think that to a large extent Master/Fantasy Craft has cracked that, as I find the skill system generally easier to use than 2.0.

A lot of people I've talked to about 2.0 didn't like the pick 'n' mix approach to the Attribute/Skill combo; they felt it was a bad attempt at aping something like the approach of the Story Teller system, which defeated the "one value to rule them all" simplicity at the core of d20.

Yea the Fantasy Craft I played at Gencon didn't seem to have any issues with confusing skills.

BTW will the Shooter Guides be compatable with 3.0?

[rgpandrade]

1. Exposure Rules,
2. the Template on 186-187 for Martial Arts,
3. Reduce the Weapons List to Round and Type,
4. Reduce the Vehicle List to type (Car, Truck, Motorcycle),
5. Leave Talents and Specialties as is,
6. Give the players/GC's a Template so that we can create our own skills and feats,
7. Seperate GC Guide,
8. Gear Books or making the Bag Full... books compatable with 3.0,
9. Choices, Choices, Choices,
10. More Templates.

[Goodlun]

I said it in another topic but I am going to say it again since it is a huge part of the genre.
I want a system for handling memory manipulation.  Falsifying or distorting memories, repressing memories, implanting memories.
Not only that but multiple personalities or sleeper agents.