Thanks for the feedback everyone, it is much appreciated.
Posted by: Crafty_Alex
One thing - you'll want to include that this is a fan supplement and not challenging ownership of other copyrighted material. This will save you a LOT of pain potentially should some corporate type come across your site....
No problem. I covered almost everything with OGL / OGC but will include those footnotes about not challenging ownership.
Posted by: tenebrae
I'm curious as to why you remade the planetouched races (Aasimar, Genasi, Tieflings) instead of using the built-in Heritage feats to accomplish the same result, and leave the character with a broader range of origin options?
Posted by: Alien Rope Burn
On first glance, not sure about Planetouched as full-on races. Though that's true to the AD&D 2e version, I think it robs FC of a lot of its versatility in dealing with that kind of concept.
Actually, their first versions were setup to take advantage of the Species feats but there were two reasons I changed that.
First one was to stay as close to the originals as possible. And the second one is to avoid having to force the player to take a 1st-level Species feat.
I'll probably move the current Species to the Appendix and replace them with those earlier FC-friendly versions. That way the GM can decide which ones he would like to use. I think that's for the best.
The Circled Feat feat doesn't seem to be very useful at all. Why would you spend a feat to be able to have a feat sometimes, instead of just taking the 2nd feat with that slot? It'd seem better if it worked as "Pick one of your feats, and two more feats that you qualify for. Once per session/By spending an action die (whichever seems more fitting) you may swap your existing feat for one of the selected feats. This change is permanent until changed again."
That would fit with both the Unity of Rings (especially if you made the three feats cycle in order) and the Rule of Threes.
Oh, I totally agree. That feat's usefulness got lost somewhere. Your suggestion is very good and I'll definitively implement it. It will just have to be different enough from the Seen It All feat. I'll post the new version here for review.
The Full Experience feats just seems like a terrible idea, as anything that makes PCs have differing XP totals is frustrating for both the GC and the players.
Yes, that one is not even useful in the case when GM doesn't award XP at all but just decides when everyone level-up's. I'll post the new version here for review.
Posted by: Psion
I was just thinking myself about how to convert the PS factions to FC, and was considering the way that the idea of Paths line up so neatly with the way Factions worked in 2e. In 2e PS, most PCs were faction members, and got a faction ability. If the Miracles/Beneficient universe quality is in play, all characters with an alignment get the first step upon their path. So all namers get their first ability.
Of course, I recommend you add this to your recommended campaign qualities.
Posted by: Alien Rope Burn
I think in doing conversions it's better to stay close to FC than worry too much about simulating the original. A lot of those old 2e mechanics were flat-out broken and not really worth replicating in any form. For example, take Entropy Blades. In doing them for FC, I gave them a simple threat increase and a Bane trait for lesser blades. Greater blades would be closer to the original, but things like the old spell-like abilities might be overdoing it.
I recently had the Doomguard in my game, and my quick and dirty solution to represent 'faction powers', magic based on fanatical belief, was just to give them Paths like Chaos or Destruction. Obviously, in a game centering on them, you might want more unique feats or master classes or specialties. I think feats are probably the way to go, with master classes for some like Doomlord.
At the moment, Alignments, Master Classes, Feats, Paths, Renown, and Favors support the factions so you can really create some interesting faction members.
Thanks for your suggestion on Beneficent Universe, I will add it to the book.
Shouldn't animal lords technically lose the animal type? (They no longer abide by the animal limitations.)
I think Einheriar should gain the everlasting quality unless my memory is faltering.
It occurs to me that under 2e rules, many greater fiends had the approximate equivalent of everlasting as well.
Yes, animal lords should lose the Animal Type and gain the Beast Type. Same thing with warden beasts.
I couldn't find a reference for Einheriar having an ability similar to everlasting. If you could find one, I'll add it.
About greater fiends and everlasting... that is correct but only when they're summoned to the plane other than their own. If you kill a fiend (or any other planar native) on its own plane, it's gone forever. I'll add a note for that under summoning sidebar.
Posted by: Alien Rope Burn
I ran Planescape using 3e for one to two years, and used to write for Planewalker.com. So this is interesting to see!
I wrote for planewalker.com during 2000 and 2001 but didn't like the lack of direction and slowness (which seems to trouble them still).
Author