SOUND OFF: Potential Iconic Classes/Banned Actions Changes

[Crafty_Alex]

Hey folks,

Two of the most hated rules in Fantasy Craft - Iconic Classes and Banned Actions - are getting the hairy eyeball here at HQ. The problems with both of these is that the penalties are very painful (-2 AD to a Level 1-5 character is *harsh*) or people just outright hate the fact they are being told "no" on something (see the "Dwarves Can't Swim" thread).

So....in the interest of finding a happy medium and not having to rewrite and layout significant chunks of the book, I'm looking at the following changes.

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)."

Banned Actions becomes: "Impaired Actions: You suffer a -10 penalty to [BLAH], [BLAH], and [BLAH] checks."

Please sound off in the poll above. If you don't like something, tell us why - is it too weak, too strong, or something else? We've got a fairly short window to work with, but you can change your vote if you change your mind later.

We will take your comments and ideas under advisement. Thanks in advance!

[Agent 333]

I voted that I don't like either not because I think either change is particularly bad, just I don't see either change as unnecessary.
Also, they both take what are pretty hefty penalties and water them down.

[Aldus Vertten]

I voted neither of them because i actually liked how they work in the core book...

[Doublebond]

I like banned actions as is, though the Iconic classes change is welcome, though a bit too much in making things easier on the player.

It's growing on me, certainly; the more I toss around the idea, the more I like it, but at the same time it doesn't feel like it's that much of a problem for higher level players. Reducing starting action die had far reaching effects, covering the amount of AD you got to the number of times you could use certain feats. Something similarly far reaching feels called for, I think; something mean, but not damning like the current system.

I cannot think of such a thing, so as of yet this is a rather empty suggestion. Then again, perhaps a penalty to AD rolls is enough; considering the amount of crap you can roll for with an AD, it might be just what's called for. (Like I said: it's growing on me.)

As said before, I don't mind banned checks as they are, and the change seems to water it down too much. That said, I like the idea of a banned check being possible through the use of an action die. Perhaps it could be such that a character with a banned check could make said check after spending an AD and then still has to deal with the -10 penalty?

[TheTSKoala]

I voted neither.  Three reasons.

1.  Like Aldus, I like how they work in the book.  My players complained once.  I countered with "Penguins have fly as a banned action."  They laughed and accepted it.  We still use it.  

2.  Is it really worthy of a 'rewrite'?  At best, or worst, maybe a (GM Optional Rule:  Instead of using it like this, you can use it like.. Blah blah blah.)

3.  Players hate being told no, but sometimes, it's what they need to be told.    Okay.. I had two serious answers, and that last one was just for smiles.

[pawsplay]

I dislike the changes to Iconic Classes. Although the current penalty is harsh, it does mean you can conserve your Action Dice and use them when it counts. -2 to AD results all the time is sort of painful, and also involves frequent calculations. I'd say either reduce it to one action die, or just leave it as is.

As for the change to banned actions... I don't hate it. That said, I don't love it, either. I think very large penalties act sort of weird sometimes. My feeling is that a more moderate penalty (-5?) plus treating such checks as untrained would be closer to the target. Thus, very Athletic dwarves could swim a little, at some risk, and even the most athletic dwarf is not going to competing for silver, while most dwarves would just not try. If a feat opens up the task, it would feel a little less radical a shift compared to other characters without the feat. Just a thought: if I'm not mistaken, a -10 penalty would not even touch a Dwarf Explorer anyway, whereas an untrained penalty would keep that in check.

On the matter of dwarves and kicking, I'm not sure what that refers to beyond maybe a couple of the tricks in the Unarmed Feat section.

[Doublebond]

Just a thought: if I'm not mistaken, a -10 penalty would not even touch a Dwarf Explorer anyway, whereas an untrained penalty would keep that in check.

But an explorer is trained in athletics. Saying the banned action makes them untrained in banned checks despite that fact overrides the class text just as much as saying flawless athletics doesn't apply to banned actions.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

I eventually couldn't decide what to vote on.  For Iconic Classes I accept it as is, I don't have a problem with it.  For Banned Actions I do prefer a change, but it's only a very minor issue that such checks should be possible at the least in dramatic moments.  So for that latter I'd be fine with allowing such checks after spending an Action Die and no more change needed.

[Crafty_Alex]

I voted that I don't like either not because I think either change is particularly bad, just I don't see either change as unnecessary.

You meant "necessary," there right? Double negatives are boggling me

Also, they both take what are pretty hefty penalties and water them down.

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

[Doublebond]

I think people have actually gotten used to them, though Iconic Classes are never going to be easy to deal with.

[Aldus Vertten]

I feel that these were a couple of things that worked really different than what people is used to, but usually get used to this. I haven0t seen so many complains about this lately in the forum...

and by the way, wouldn't an increase in error range be a better option than a -10 in the banned skills? i would still prefer the original mechanic, but i think that would be a better change than the proposed. Yo can do it, but you're taking a biiiig risk by doing it....

al

[Krensky]

Shockingly enough...

I actually like the changes. The -10 feels kind of low but it's certainly workable, and the iconic class change should silence whinges from the peanut gallery.

[Mister Andersen]

Yay! I've loathed Iconic Classes since day 1 -- it's too harsh, and breaks things in a manner reminiscent of WotC's dreadful Level Adjustment (admittedly, Fantasy Craft 'cheated' by ramping down the number of AD based class abilities, but for Origin of the Species users in Spycraft 2.0, not so much luck there).

Personally, I was neutral on banned actions -- I see and liked the point they were making, but understood where people were coming from in their conceptual reaction to it. I'd actually been toying around with this quality as a replacement for it (the following is it applied to Dwarves):

Inept: You always make Jump and Swim checks untrained, and attacks using a Kick trick do not gain the benefit of the appropriate proficiency, and you may never take 10 or 20 with these checks. Further, your result cap with these actions is lowered to 10, and cannot be boosted above this value by spending action dice. Finally, all errors made performing an inept action may be activated for 1 less die than usual (minimum 0).

[Medwyn]

I don't like either changes.

It seems you are watering down the effect.

With Iconic Classes there are feats that allow more classes, and I have never had any problems with my players over this. I like the rule as it is.

With Banned Actions, never able to attempt the check is pretty harsh, but I think that a -10 penalty is something my players would scoff at. I do like the idea of making them always untrained though...

And Mister A's advice for Inept strikes a chord with me.

[Crafty_Alex]

To all complaining these are less harsh: I know these are losing a bit of their edge. That's the point I'm trying to strike a balance between a penalty that's significant and not totally WTF. There are many gamers out there who are *not* giving us the benefit of the doubt here and "just getting used to it" so something that stings without pissing people off would be the goal

Mr. A - the "always untrained" is in my back pocket for the Banned Checks replacement.