House Rule Bonanza!

[Crafty_Alex]

I wouldn't do it, but then I designed the game the way it is for a reason

[Desertpuma]

Sneak & Search are ACTIVE skills for the players to choose to make rolls with. But Blend & Notice are PASSIVE skills for you the GC to roll. Players do not get to choose to roll Passive skills. The GC rolls them so they can modify things as needed. When entering an area where the PCs might sense something, the GC rolls Notice unless the players are Actively Searching for something. The same holds true for the other skill. Unless a PC is Actively Sneaking, as in choosing to stealth his way in, he rolls Sneak. Otherwise, you the GC roll Blend.

Another reason that Notice needs to be Passive is because there are 2 ExC that depend on making it Active as their Core Ability: Field Analyst & Guide. Having seen the grimace and groan from the other players when they realize you've rolled their Notice and then ask the Field Analyst to make their Active Notice check is actually kind of fun.

Blend is not something consciously done. It is also used when your PCs agent is well known enough that he may not be able to slip through the crowd unseen by a rival. As depicted in the films, Bourne has lots of Blend. He does not try to Sneak but he just does blend into the environment and until he is spotted does not need to Sneak. This is one of the reasons why he is so hard to find. Conversely, Bond does not have Blend but he can Sneak.

[Mister Andersen]

Alternatively, if you're running them as combined skills, players lose the advantage of Notice and Blend being rolled and their skill bonus becomes a static DC an opponent has to beat

[nil]

I thought of a slightly different solution to the "notice/blend versus search/sneak and when to use them" problem by trying to give both set of skills a slightly different approach to what they do - somewhat similar to Mister Andersen's idea but without combining the skills.

Fixed Notice and Blend (Permanent)
No dice are rolled for the Notice or Blend skill, instead you "Take 8" (same rules as "Take 10"), leading to fixed results. At the GM's discretion, a d20 may be rolled for Notice or Blend for the purposes of errors or threats only.


The intention is that Notice and Blend are used when the players are not actively Searching/Sneaking, though with no limitations on when Notice/Blend are usable, such as no crowds for Blending. That way, there would be no more confusion about when to use which skill. To make up for the slight advantage for Notice/Blend (always "on", are free actions), their results are statistically lower than those of Search/Sneak, given the same skill modifiers - on average, the d20 comes up with 8 for Notice/Blend and 10.5 for Search/Sneak. Thus, Notice/Blend would provide reliable, "always on" results while Search/Sneak would provide statistically better, though also potentially very low results at the cost of having to announce their use and spending actions to use them.

Making the results of Notice/Blend fixed - though still changable by the usual modifiers like those on table 2.7 and circumstance modifiers - also (hopefully) helps with cutting down the GC's work as normally the GC would have to roll Notice/Blend. Since there are also no more (explicit) passive skills in FantasyCraft, it should also help keep things surprising - the GC does not have to give away there is something to notice by rolling, even in secret.

The possibility to roll a d20 for errors and threats at the GC's discretion is mainly meant to either help take advantage of players increased error range or let players use their increased threat range most likely acquired by character options.

[Desertpuma]

I like the idea of Active vs Passive skills. Most Secret skill checks I just made Active checks without identifying any parameters that needed to be identified.

One of the reasons that I saw for Passive checks was to avoid the players knowing they failed something and making another pass at it right away like "so you didn't make the Spot check and..." "I'll make another Spot check"

I like the way it is delineated in the book as I think it represents the best way to do it. However, a friend of mine has everyone roll 20 D20 and record their numbers in a list on a piece of paper and then randomly selects a starting point for the list and uses the numbers in order from that point forward so the players don't know which was used. It saved him from rolling constantly and kept the players more in the dark than letting them know when he was rolling.

[Crafty_Pat]

If I were to combine the skills, I'd charge twice for them (2 skill points for each rank). It's the only way they're balanced against the others.

[Sletchman]

If I were to combine the skills, I'd charge twice for them (2 skill points for each rank). It's the only way they're balanced against the others.

That's an interesting idea, and something I actually considered to be honest [more along the lines of "if you take one you have to take the other].

I personally really like the active / passive split, but I have some players with issues.

[MilitiaJim]

... some players with issues.

Then they fail to understand the distinction. 

Blend is sitting against the side of the "house" with the rest of my squad when the sergeant comes over, looks at the group, then goes off to find me.

Sneak is my buddy sneaking up the guys playing OPFOR and "killing" them before he had noticed they were there.

[Mister Andersen]

If I were to combine the skills, I'd charge twice for them (2 skill points for each rank). It's the only way they're balanced against the others.

However, that rather undermines the point of combining them in the first place

[Krensky]

... some players with issues.

Then they fail to understand the distinction. 

Blend is sitting against the side of the "house" with the rest of my squad when the sergeant comes over, looks at the group, then goes off to find me.

Sneak is my buddy sneaking up the guys playing OPFOR and "killing" them before he had noticed they were there.

And you tell which one to use by thinking about who is calling for it. Anytime a player asks, it's active. Otherwise it's passive.

As for the GM rolling, go to random.org and print out a list of a hundred integers between 1 and 20. Mark them off as used. Same as rolling dice and it looks like you're taking notes.

[Sletchman]

And you tell which one to use by thinking about who is calling for it. Anytime a player asks, it's active. Otherwise it's passive.

I might tell the problem players that actually.  I'd given dozens of example scenarios but never thought to say something like that.  Could work.

[Bill Whitmore]

And you tell which one to use by thinking about who is calling for it. Anytime a player asks, it's active. Otherwise it's passive.

I might tell the problem players that actually.  I'd given dozens of example scenarios but never thought to say something like that.  Could work.

That is basically the breakdown I use.  I have a sheet with all the players Notice and Blend totals and I just make the checks as needed in secret.  If they ask to hide or if they ask if they see anything then I have them roll Search or Sneak.

For NPCs I treat them as having a phantom player.  For instance, if the situation is one where the phantom player would ask to roll, like they are on guard duty or they are chasing someone into a room and trying to find them, I used Search, otherwise I use Notice.  Likewise for Blend/Sneak.

[Desertpuma]

And you tell which one to use by thinking about who is calling for it. Anytime a player asks, it's active. Otherwise it's passive.

As for the GM rolling, go to random.org and print out a list of a hundred integers between 1 and 20. Mark them off as used. Same as rolling dice and it looks like you're taking notes.

I'll have to remember that as the best way to phrase it and random.org is going to get used for certain.

[adrick]

Just finished our first session and we like others seem to think magic was a little underwhelming in the combat department at first level.
Also seemed weird  that the mage did not really having anything to do with the few pp available until level three (barring a magic item like the staff at level 2, or unless we are missing something) 

These concerns were mostly due to there being only one attack spell. We are not to concerned with this since spellbound is coming however in the meantime.
 
House rule we are going to use
1. changed the spell conversion feats to allow 1st level spells to be cast as 0 level spells but 1st level spells that are dropped to 0 still cost one PP.

2. made up a few combat oriented 0 level spells.  basically weaker versions of level 1 spells.
so d6 magic missile for one target at close range.
other versions of polar ray (i.e. lightning, sonic, etc. still d6 damage but have a different side effect etc.)

Seems like this will work well, so the mages can be on the combat end of wild card if desired.

A third thought we had was to allow one school of magic to be available one circle of power earlier.
so 1st level spells at level one 2nd level at mage level 3  for divination only for example.
most likely at the cost of a feat.  or the slower advance of another school.  (no 0 level spells till mage lv 3 and so on for magic school x )

Currently not being used though for fear of its abuse potential.

[Sletchman]

Just finished our first session and we like others seem to think magic was a little underwhelming in the combat department at first level.
Also seemed weird  that the mage did not really having anything to do with the few pp available until level three (barring a magic item like the staff at level 2, or unless we are missing something)

Most of the feats have a trick that costs spell points and can be used at level 1.  Spell Conversion: Distance and Duration are the only ones you'll be able to use at level 1, but the rest rest open up from level 2 onwards.

House rule we are going to use
1. changed the spell conversion feats to allow 1st level spells to be cast as 0 level spells but 1st level spells that are dropped to 0 still cost one PP.

2. made up a few combat oriented 0 level spells.  basically weaker versions of level 1 spells.
so d6 magic missile for one target at close range.
other versions of polar ray (i.e. lightning, sonic, etc. still d6 damage but have a different side effect etc.)

I'm already using the second one, but with the upcoming release of spellbound it might be a moot point.  The first rule is a pretty cool idea, and I can't see any crazy issues it could lead to - they can only do it twice a scene, and most of the 1st level spells aren't exactly megadeath effects that will unbalance an encounter.  Plus most of the tricks that reduce spell level have a downside too.

A third thought we had was to allow one school of magic to be available one circle of power earlier.
so 1st level spells at level one 2nd level at mage level 3  for divination only for example.
most likely at the cost of a feat.  or the slower advance of another school.  (no 0 level spells till mage lv 3 and so on for magic school x )

I like the idea - kinda feels a little like the specialist mage from dnd [just in terms of style] - better at one school and worse at another.  Like you, I'm not sure about the potential balance issues - combine with feats and you could be casting a 1st level fireball, or other crazy things [disintegrate as a 4th level spell].

I think if you did it the other way around - made it that you can cast one level higher then normal for a single school, but the spells level didn't change, it would be more balanced [unless that's what you meant and I misunderstood].  With that the only major issues I can see is potential issues with Infernalist interaction.