SOUND OFF: Potential Iconic Classes/Banned Actions Changes

[Fortinbras]

Yes, but the argument was that the iconic classes system was ineffective in making the race as a whole less "better" than other races, which is what I was addressing.

Well then the other argument is that all a character's attribute scores will come into play sooner or later, and act as strengths and weaknesses that influences how he plays at all levels, whereas the action dice penalty only applies if you build your character a certain way and otherwise never inhibits you at all.

[Chip Warden]

I don't have a problem with Iconic Classes or Banned Actions as they are written now. However, I don't have an issue with the proposed modifications, either.

Looking forward to Fantasy Craft Second Printing. Are we there yet? 

[MilitiaJim]

I would be much happier with Iconic penalties that could be wiped out with a feat or two, and were that the case I would happily support the die penalty over the die result penalty.  That said, the penalty on the roll does make feats that have effects based on starting action dice useful again.

Expanding the error range on the check would not be amiss either.

[pawsplay]

For all the growling, I was lead to believe that many people thought the restrictions were too much.

I do think they are too much, although maybe not too, too much. Honestly, the Action Die thing is pretty painful, I think just knocking it down to a one die penalty probably puts it back in the park.

The banned check thing bothers me, not because I expect Ogres to succeed on Influence checks, but because I think an ogre trying to use Influence isn't even in the same ballpark as a human trying to flap their wings and fly like a Drake, as mentioned above. The fact that there is nothing really in-between "no problem" and "you fail" suggests a conceptual hole in how to deal with the issue. Surely some race is really bad at something without being hopeless. In any case, even a modest penalty, as long as it is a real penalty, should discourage development in strange directions, ultimately leading to the desired result (no suave Ogres).

As to the objection earlier about Dwarf explorers, it is a simple enough matter to state that Always Untrained overrides other traits that set a final skill result.

[tenebrae]

Iconic Classes becomes: "If your level in any base class is higher than your level in either [BLAH] or [BLAH], you suffer a -2 penalty to action die results (minimum 1)."

How would people feel about either of the following?

"Iconic Classes becomes: "If your level in any base class is higher than your level in either [BLAH] or [BLAH], any action dice you roll are reduced in die size by 1 category (e.g. d6 becomes d4)".

or

Iconic Classes becomes: "If your level in any base class is higher than your level in either [BLAH] or [BLAH], your action dice never explode."

The first one is only half the suggested penalty in the original proposal, so mabe they could be stacked (smaller + no explode), but I was thinking that one of the benefits of rolling smaller dice that that they can still get big numbers with explosions.

[Mister Andersen]

Never exploding is by and large trivial, as 3/4, 5/6, 7/8 and 9/10 of the time, you'll get a non exploding result anyway which makes the penalty essentially pointless.

The reducing die size is essentially functionally equivalent to the -2 penalty at first glance, but adversely affects those few abilities/etc that rely on the face size of your AD (of which there are maybe 1 or 2), and ironically the players stuck with smaller AD have a statisically greater chance than their team mates of their dice exploding on any given roll. Further, feats/abilities that increase the face value of AD effectively negate the penalty due to species, whereas the flat penalty means even someone sporting larger than usual AD is still affected.

[Sletchman]

After changing my vote a bunch, I decided not to vote at all.  Now the why:

Banned Actions: I don't mind them at all, nice flavour, and the change to -10 isn't hefty enough to be more then a nuisance [and for some classes it's not even that].  Perminantly untrained could definately work, but I don't really have a problem with outright bans when they fit the race in questions style [which the existing ones do].

Iconic Classes: I want to burn it with fire, or nuke it from orbit, or one then the other.  It's the only mechanic in the book that I truly hate.  The change is less of a kick in the junk, but rather then gimping you at the start of the session, and hitting your core ability, it hits every action die you earn.  My biggest problem with it is that it gets worse with every base class released, going from 2/8, to 2/16, to 2/26...etc...  The only way to overcome it ends with there being 30 species feats for races with iconic classes.

My group [me included] believes Iconic Classes should be a benefit, giving you bonuses for fitting the archtype of your race.  At this point I don't have an alternative, but it's in my mind for house ruling.

[Wolverine]

I do like both of the suggested changes, but I also like TSKoala's idea of having them as an option for GM's.

The thing that's bugged me since Fantasy Craft was released is that it doesn't have a default setting. We get allusions of fluff here and there (some of the Species Feats, for starters), but that's about it. I imagine many of the complaints about Iconic Classes might go away if there was a campaign setting that supported the choices.

As for Banned Checks, it feels like the main complaint comes from misconception. "Dwarves can't swim" is an incorrect statement. "Dwarves can't make Swim skill checks" is what the rules actually say. They can tread water, but don't expect them to enter the 300m Butterfly.

[aegis]

I like the change on Iconic Classes. The penalty is maybe not severe enough, especially compared to the previous one, but it's already much more acceptable.

However, I really dislike the new banned action mechanics. Just a numerical penalty doesn't fit right there in my opinion. Since I don't like to criticize without giving a suggestion, here's mine: why not "capping" the skill check to a maximum value of 10 or 15 (a bit Spycraft-like)? Hence banned action will only allow you to succeed with the easiest of these actions.

[Charlie_X]

I'm fine with banned actions being the way they are. Common sense allows the fact that people can dog paddle or stay vaguely afloat even as dwarves. Being able to say "this thing is completely incapable of X" is often a good thing.

I have an NPC who is a bandit genuinely incapable of lying. That fact alone has made him a point of interest. Not necessary to use the stats for that, but it's a nice way of representing it in game.

The iconic specialties are a bit of a difficult thing. -2 to action dice results are potentially better in the short term, after all, they'd still explode. Losing actual action dice is only bad coming into a session though, where you can be suitably dramatic and get them back early if you're good enough, it's not like there's a cap on the amount you can earn, after all.

[tenebrae]

The primary issue I see with replacing a banned action with a -10 penalty is that it wouldn't affect characters with a Flawless ability for that skill. Dwarven Explorers would be jumping and Swimming left, right and centre.

[Mister Andersen]

Well, you could make a case that the explorer class naturally attracts dwarves with above normal athletic capability.

[Atr]

I dislike hate Iconic Classes.  Or mean no penalty (if you want one of the iconnic classes)or the penalty is too severe. I also think that they would work better as beneficts.

About banned actions, I was thinking in allowing an untrained check spending 1 action dice.  (keeping the flavour of the banned actions, avoiding the total prohibition).

[Nezeray]

I  voted that I didn't like either new option.  I personally don't mind that a dwarf can't swim without taking a feat.  If a human can take a feat to fly, I'm okay with that (Angelic Ancestry?). 

I don't like restrictions on what class you can take based on your race.  Why can't I have dwarves in my world who are wizards with the same number of AD as the svelt human wizard?  I also don't like the added math of a -2 to each AD.

If I see something that I don't like for MY game, I'll change it or ignore it.

James / Nezeray

[tenebrae]

For something in a completely different direction, could Favored Class (if it has to be kept) impose a penalty to Legend for characters that don't fit the mould? Everyone thinks of Orcs as warriors, so it's easy for an Orc Soldier to build up a legend. The Orc Burglar? He's a strange one (although perhaps more memorable, which would argue against using Legend).