Fantasy Craft Second Printing Q&A Thread

[Crafty_Pat]

The mounted combat rules don't address the situation when there's multiple riders on a mount, or in our specific case, a rider and a "gunner". Do they all act as one character, or only the rider and mount, while the gunner is free to act on his own? And if the former, does that mean they benefit from the best DR & Resistance of the three and the worst Def, Init, & Saves?

I would run it that only the rider and mount act as one character. Anyone else on a mount is treated like a vehicle passenger.

[Big_Jim]

The mounted combat rules don't address the situation when there's multiple riders on a mount, or in our specific case, a rider and a "gunner". Do they all act as one character, or only the rider and mount, while the gunner is free to act on his own? And if the former, does that mean they benefit from the best DR & Resistance of the three and the worst Def, Init, & Saves?

I would run it that only the rider and mount act as one character. Anyone else on a mount is treated like a vehicle passenger.

Unfortunately there are no FantasyCraft rules for the benefits or penalties of being a passenger or even what a passenger can do. Not even vague guidelines. Spycraft 2.0 have two contradictory rules concerning passengers and they only apply during a chase (or other appropriate dramatic conflict):

...the participants and other nearby or involved characters may take 1 or more actions, as noted in the appropriate Conflict description. These actions represent brief opportunities during each Conflict round when drivers and passengers can attack opponents, interrogators can compare notes or consult reference materials, hackers can communicate with other members of their team, and so on.

and

During Step 4 of each Conflict round, each participant operating a vehicle or on foot may take 1 half action. Each other character in the chase — i.e. each passenger in a vehicle, anyone who isn't piloting it — may take 1 full action or 2 half actions as standard.

So, the only mastercraft guidelines are you can take a single action or a act normally (1 full action or 2 half actions as standard). Upon noting this contradiction several years ago, our playgroup decided that the "single action" rule was the fairest for passengers, and on large vehicles (ships, large cargo planes, etc.) you just treated the vehicle as if you were on (or in) a building that was going somewhere.. so you acted normally in those cases.

That's how we did it.

[Crafty_Pat]

Unfortunately there are no FantasyCraft rules for the benefits or penalties of being a passenger or even what a passenger can do. Not even vague guidelines. Spycraft 2.0 have two contradictory rules concerning passengers and they only apply during a chase (or other appropriate dramatic conflict):

That's intentional. Passengers sit, they get in and out of the vehicle, they act - just like anyone else. There don't have to be any special rules for them.

[Big_Jim]

Unfortunately there are no FantasyCraft rules for the benefits or penalties of being a passenger or even what a passenger can do. Not even vague guidelines. Spycraft 2.0 have two contradictory rules concerning passengers and they only apply during a chase (or other appropriate dramatic conflict):

That's intentional. Passengers sit, they get in and out of the vehicle, they act - just like anyone else. There don't have to be any special rules for them.

If only one of the pair is a special character that character makes all decisions, but if both are standard or special characters they must agree on actions taken. When an equal pair can’t decide in a reasonable amount of time, they revert to separate characters (one a passenger on the other).

<Douchey Rules-Lawyer Mode> So it's a huge benefit for my lancer to "argue" with my mount so we become passenger and carrier (Fantasy Craft, page 215, quoted above) so we both get two half actions in combat each round? Awesome! </Douchey Rules-Lawyer Mode>

That's why i think that's a bad call. Limiting passengers to one action (Full or half) keeps those shenanigans to a minimum.

[Crafty_Pat]

That's why i think that's a bad call. Limiting passengers to one action (Full or half) keeps those shenanigans to a minimum.

It's fair criticism, if an extreme corner case. If you feel that's a worthwhile rule that will come up often enough in your game to include it, have at! If you just want to tuck it away for those times it may be handy, awesome.

Not sure it's something I'd want to hard-code into the game, though. Maybe if we reprint those rules, but it's not errata-worthy. It just wouldn't come up enough.

[MugMug]

<Douchey Rules-Lawyer Mode> So it's a huge benefit for my lancer to "argue" with my mount so we become passenger and carrier (Fantasy Craft, page 215, quoted above) so we both get two half actions in combat each round? Awesome! </Douchey Rules-Lawyer Mode>

But we already have rules covering this situation.

<GM Mode> Awesome; let's start making those Impress/Intimidate checks any time you try and direct your mount. We'll also be discussing disposition checks in the near future.</GM Mode>

Walter

[Big_Jim]

That's not a rule. That's a solution. Don't confuse the two.

[Bill Whitmore]

I always figured if it wasn't voluntary then it's a grapple.

[Sletchman]

That's not a rule. That's a solution. Don't confuse the two.

That's not even a solution, it's just common sense.  You are fighting with your mount (by your own choice, no less).  Why on earth would something that's fighting with you carry you precisely where you want them to?

If you're not riding an animal, but an intelligent creature, then unless it has the same alignment, motivations and personality as your PC why would it decide completely on it's own to do the things you want to do?

The answer is the same for both: It wouldn't.  So you have to convince it.  By the rules this means Impress/Intimidate checks for an intelligent creature and taking actions to manually direct a non-intelligent one.

[Krensky]

Personally, I'd remind the rules lawyer that while the AP feat says it's under his control, it's still an NPC and therfore ultimately under GM control.

"Trigger looks at you and neighs in a confused manner as you try to have a one sided argument with him, then gamely does what you want. You're back to a mounted character and at a -2 to everything for trying to game the rules, <cough> I mean confusing your horse."

Honestly, I don't think it breaks anything. I mean it's no different then the Lancer fighting dismounted most of the time, or someone with a non-mount AP or PL. The solution here isn't changing the rules to account for an extreme corner case, it's polishing the viking hat, learning to say no, and not playing with douchey rules lawyers.

[Gentry]

Just for the mention, there's a corner case involving a small creature riding in the backpack of a large creature that would theoretically have them not be a mounted character. If the large character's a melee masher and the wee one in his pack is healing him or shooting a crossbow or something, you could potentially squeeze into a corner case of "two characters instead of one". Not saying I'd allow it (you'd have to coordinate or the little one would just have to hang on and pray), but it's another douchey rules-lawyer move that's out there.

(I've actually seen it done. It was stupid, but somebody thought of it, so there you go)

[Sletchman]

Honestly, I don't think it breaks anything. I mean it's no different then the Lancer fighting dismounted most of the time, or someone with a non-mount AP or PL. The solution here isn't changing the rules to account for an extreme corner case, it's polishing the viking hat, learning to say no, and not playing with douchey rules lawyers.

There are plenty of cases where it makes sense though - the Drake Riding Captain who comes to a gentleman's agreement with his (Int 14) Drake that it will fly around spitting fireballs at enemies while he fires at them with his bow.  Logically it's two intelligent creatures being self determining, who really should have seperate actions*.

Having an argument for bonus actions will always be stupid, but there will be suitations where logically both participants should act seperately.  I wouldn't call them extreme cornercases either - especially since something that almost every roleplayer has wanted as a mount (a freaking dragon) is easily available in the game (and there's even an Expert Class to make you do it better - complete with art of a dude on a dragon to drive the point home).  The Mount rules are the single most complained about thing I've had from people I've introduced the game to, often because of two intelligent creatures who want to do seperate things - a Pech "just standing" on a rootwalker, or an Archer on a Dragon.


_{* For obvious reasons the Captain's movement is restricted and he could well be flatfooted due to being strapped to an aerial saddle.}


I have a new question: What is a stiletto?  Is it this?  If yes, why does it have AP8?  That doesn't look like it could punch a hole through steel plate.  If it was something else in medieval times - can someone link me to a picture of what the word used to mean, please?

[The_Grand_User]

The wikipedia article on it has a good picture.

As for mounted actions, I run them more as for controlling dumb animals, rather than intelligent mounts. Particularly if the intelligent mount counts as another character in the party for purposes of mob size.

Though I also think it'd be good for there to be a feat similar to Surge of Speed that'll give you a bonus action solely for the purposes of moving a mount.

[Takeru]

This is a stiletto



They were primarily used to thrust into the chinks in armor, or right -through- armor if the need arose. Primarily for finishing foes off.

   It's my Assassin's favored weapon. With the Heartseeker ability, I like to say that it has "AP Yes"

[Crafty_Pat]

That's not a rule. That's a solution. Don't confuse the two.

I've long said and will forever maintain that the job of an RPG is not to offer rules for every occasion, but rather to suggest solutions for every group. In practical terms, it's impossible to do the first, and when writing a book there's really no chance to even conceive of all the permutations needed for the second. Thus, you provide a baseline that's easy to use and build from, and let the community take it from there. It's not just the only feasible solution - it's the very best way to make sure everyone has what they need to run the game according to their particular needs.

The fact that nearly everyone can immediately see how to deal with this particular situation in the story and with the rules tells me that there's really no need to officially carry the ball across that particular goal line. We can focus our attention elsewhere and we'll all be much better off for it.