Fantasy Craft Second Printing Q&A Thread

[Big_Jim]

...It's effectively like the hit inflicted 0 damage instead (which also means accumulated damage would NOT be reset, Edge-gaining effects that trigger "on a hit" would still work, etc).

Page 207 would seem to indicate (to me) that the damage count would reset:

Page 207: Some standard characters must fail more than 1 Damage save before they’re out of the fight, such as those with the tough quality (see page 235). Each time one of these characters fails a Damage save, his accumulated damage resets to 0.

Since the effect vs standard characters is auto-fail, wouldn't it also reset the damage?

[paddyfool]

...It's effectively like the hit inflicted 0 damage instead (which also means accumulated damage would NOT be reset, Edge-gaining effects that trigger "on a hit" would still work, etc).

Page 207 would seem to indicate (to me) that the damage count would reset:

Page 207: Some standard characters must fail more than 1 Damage save before they’re out of the fight, such as those with the tough quality (see page 235). Each time one of these characters fails a Damage save, his accumulated damage resets to 0.

Since the effect vs standard characters is auto-fail, wouldn't it also reset the damage?

Not based on how I interpret what Alex and the rules are saying...

Situation 1: Standard character with a grade of Tough fails a damage save.  Tough grade triggers, damage resets to zero; next failed damage save, he's out.

Situation 2: Standard character with a grade of Tough receives a critical.  Tough grade triggers, but damage does not reset to zero since accumulated damage was not the triggering condition; the critical being activated was.  The hit happens, but inflicts 0 damage.

Situation 3: Special character with a grade of Tough receives a critical.  Tough grade triggers; the hit does 0 damage.

[Deral]

...It's effectively like the hit inflicted 0 damage instead (which also means accumulated damage would NOT be reset, Edge-gaining effects that trigger "on a hit" would still work, etc).

Page 207 would seem to indicate (to me) that the damage count would reset:

Page 207: Some standard characters must fail more than 1 Damage save before they’re out of the fight, such as those with the tough quality (see page 235). Each time one of these characters fails a Damage save, his accumulated damage resets to 0.

Since the effect vs standard characters is auto-fail, wouldn't it also reset the damage?

Not based on how I interpret what Alex and the rules are saying...

Situation 1: Standard character with a grade of Tough fails a damage save.  Tough grade triggers, damage resets to zero; next failed damage save, he's out.

Situation 2: Standard character with a grade of Tough receives a critical.  Tough grade triggers, but damage does not reset to zero since accumulated damage was not the triggering condition; the critical being activated was.  The hit happens, but inflicts 0 damage.

Situation 3: Special character with a grade of Tough receives a critical.  Tough grade triggers; the hit does 0 damage.

Based on what Alex was saying, this sounds about right- now does a Standard Character still take damage on a critical, in addition to the failed damage save (or the negated failed damage save, as appropriate)?

Edit: Man was this post broken, I think that fixed it

[Crafty_Pat]

Thanks for the responses and welcomes, everyone.  I wanted to point out that I wasn't comparing Fortunate to FFtB or LLS, which are obviously completely different, but rather Fortune's Fool, which is comparable to (and, as far as I can tell, strictly worse than) Fortunate.

My apologies for missing the additional concern in your post. Looking at Fortunate vs. Fortune's Fool I can see the concern. I have a couple questions for the gallery...

1. Who's taken Fortune's Fool so far? Of those who answer yes, who's taking it for the added benefit it provides as a Chance feat vs. its stated benefit?

2. Of those of you not taking it, who would consider it if "critical failure" were swapped to "error"?

Thanks!

[Dhampire]

Thanks for the responses and welcomes, everyone.  I wanted to point out that I wasn't comparing Fortunate to FFtB or LLS, which are obviously completely different, but rather Fortune's Fool, which is comparable to (and, as far as I can tell, strictly worse than) Fortunate.

My apologies for missing the additional concern in your post. Looking at Fortunate vs. Fortune's Fool I can see the concern. I have a couple questions for the gallery...

1. Who's taken Fortune's Fool so far? Of those who answer yes, who's taking it for the added benefit it provides as a Chance feat vs. its stated benefit?

As one who has built a couple of Chance Feat abusers, I have not had one where Fortune's Fool fit.
If I got to the point where I was out of other Chance Feats, it would likely have been taken for the sheer benefit as "another Chance Feat."

2. Of those of you not taking it, who would consider it if "critical failure" were swapped to "error"?

Thanks!

I would be more likely to take it with that change.  Yes.

[Crafty_Pat]

Based on what Alex was saying, this sounds about right- now does a Standard Character still take damage on a critical, in addition to the failed damage save (or the negated failed damage save, as appropriate)?

For simplicity's sake and because tough is supposed to negate all effects of the attack, I would rule that damage is not applied. It's as if nothing happened to the NPC at all.

[Krensky]

Re: Fortune's Fool.

I haven't taken it, but I also have a dislike of 'reactive' options. Certainly making it trigger on an error rather then a critical failure makes it more appealing, but I'm not sure I'd necessarily take it then, just do to personal taste.

[Antilles]

I haven't actually played a chance feat heavy character, but if I were to build, say, a chance explorer or fortune priest, Fortune's Fool would be fairly high on the list of feats to take. I like it both as a 'character can turn bad luck to good' mechanic, and it kinda like to imagine the GM paying an AD to give me an AD, even though it's not quite that simple.

Changing it from critical failure to error can work, though I'd think about changing the limiter to something with a max upper range, as I'd imagine there are more errors than critical failures in a session.

[Bill Whitmore]

The problem is Fortunate gives you a number of bonus d4 action dice equal to the number of chance feats.  Fortune's Fool does the exact same thing except you need to get a critical failure to get each die.  Even if Fortune's Fool triggers on an error instead of a critical failure, it still requires a series of bad rolls to get what Fortunate gives you for free.

So what if Fortune's Fool had the potential to give you something besides a single d4 action die, something more than Fortunate? 

A) If it gave 2d4 action dice per critical failure it would give you the potential to gain twice the number of dice as Fortunate, but it has to be triggered.

or

B) If it gave an untyped action die with an error it would potentially make the action dice gained better than those from Fortunate.

Just some thoughts.

[Sletchman]

1. Who's taken Fortune's Fool so far? Of those who answer yes, who's taking it for the added benefit it provides as a Chance feat vs. its stated benefit?

I haven't taken it, simply because the other Chance feats offered my chance-feat heavy builds more bang for their buck, in addition to being an extra Chance feat.

2. Of those of you not taking it, who would consider it if "critical failure" were swapped to "error"?

Unlikely - While I do have uncanny ability to roll entire sessions of just either 1's and 20's, I tend to go for stuff that makes me better at doing things well, not stuff that makes moments of sucking hurt less (not to mention when I'm playing a specialist, a 1 often isn't an error anyway - so it can be entirely moot).

If the benefit changed to "When the GM spends an action die against you, you gain 1 bonus action die.  These are always 1d4s." I would be far more likely to consider it - that way it covers both critical failure along with damage boosting, and to hit boosting (and in my mind still seems in line with the flavour).  Just a thought.

[Big_Jim]

I agree with Sletchman. Haven't taken it for my Chance-monkey, and don't plan to, as it's the least attractive chance feat I can think of. The Edge manipulation feats are second on 'Don't want" list, but I think that's just me not being confident that I'll use/keep up with/remember the various Edge stuff.

I think Sletchman's suggestion is a good replacement, but I'd make the bonus die stuck at 1d4 instead of scaling.

[Mister Andersen]

Yeah, Sletchman's idea is pretty golden compared to the current version of the feat, which as others have pointed out takes far too long to trigger.

As it stands, I'd maybe consider it worth a proficiency to gain as an initiative action because it reads as kinda similar to something like Parry.

[Crafty_Pat]

If the benefit changed to "When the GM spends an action die against you, you gain 1 bonus action die." I would be far more likely to consider it - that way it covers both critical failure along with damage boosting, and to hit boosting (and in my mind still seems in line with the flavour).  Just a thought.

It's a good one. Will consider.

[Agent 333]

I will note that I played a character (A Priest focused on the Path of Fortune) to level 7 or 8 that was loaded with chance feats and never took Fortune's Fool. Non-chance feats like Well-Rounded were higher on my priority list so that I could put one point in every skill so I could blow right past the untrained cap (When you add 8 to your action dice results and have enough AD that you can use one on nearly every skill check a session, that cap of 15 is a real barrier to success).

Here's an idea: Rather than capping it based on chance feats, cap it based on Starting Action Dice. That way it's better for people with few other chance feats, but its still not horrible to take if you have a handful of others.

[Sletchman]

Here's an idea: Rather than capping it based on chance feats, cap it based on Starting Action Dice. That way it's better for people with few other chance feats, but its still not horrible to take if you have a handful of others.

I personally wouldn't cap it at all, getting a d4 every time the DM uses an action die against you isn't powerful enough to deter them, but useful enough to be worth a feat (and offset the hurt a little).  If you are loaded to the hilt with chance feats then it loses no utility because "Hey, it's even more action dice!".

Just my $0.05.

I think Sletchman's suggestion is a good replacement, but I'd make the bonus die stuck at 1d4 instead of scaling.

Actually my intent, should have made that clearer.  Will edit for clarity.