Fortune's Fool Errata Discussion

[Bill Whitmore]

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.  Fortune's Fool just looks like a penalized Fortunate to me. Go go house rules.

[Gentry]

Hey Bill, let me provide an example that may put some perspective on how nutty the new Fortune's Fool can get that has very little to do with direct mechanical benefit.

Dhampire plays a character in my intermittent FC game that is a horrendous action die rapist. He's got the chance thing driven through the roof, and with a level of Sage thrown in he can hand these things (something like 4 d6+9s, explodes on 5+, with four or five extra d4s at the outset thanks to Fortunate) to the whole group.

If Dhampire's character now picks up Fortune's Fool, I'm handing him an atomic action die bomb *any time I use an action die on him*. In practice, this is going to make his character largely immune to my action dice, as he'll make me squeal with every extra die he ends up with (especially since he's liable to end up with a few extra anyway just for RP, because I'm not a total douche).

From a mechanical perspective, you may say "this just proves my point--he'll derive no benefit from the feat". And from a mechanical perspective, you'd be more or less correct. From a meta perspective, however, it allows Dhampire to potentially finesse his resources much further. He may hold an action die back and be content with a middling opposed skill check result, for instance, since he may calculate that in order for me to beat it I'll likely need to spend an action die, which means I'm throwing him in the briar patch.

Taking this new Fortune's Fool seems to accentuate the whole nature of Chance Feats, and the notion that sometimes a bluff is as good as a straight flush. 

[Bill Whitmore]

See, I understand that.  But does that put Fortune's Fool's potential action dice reward of 4 to 5 d4 action dice any where near the same level as always gaining, no matter what, 4 or 5 d4 action dice at the start of every session?

I am not arguing that Fortune's Fool is a worthless, I am arguing that Fortunate is strictly better.  The only time someone seems interested in it is after they already have Fortunate.

Even in the example given, Dhampire already has Fortunate and picks up Fortune's Fool.

Now I am curious.  If you only had one feat to spend, who would actually take Fortune's Fool over Fortunate?

[Gentry]

Of course, you'd take Fortunate. But there's nothing inherently wrong with certain feats being obviously better to take after others. The new Fortune's Fool is a capstone, not a foundation. And all by itself, as Morg's pointed out, Fortunate doesn't do that much. It's only after you've synergized it with three or four more Chance feats that it gets really spectacular. And that's ok. There's 20 levels of play to manage, and the synergy effects should get more and more spectacular among feats that are less than amazing when examined individually in a vacuum.

For myself, none of the Chance feats look good by themselves. If I could only take one, I'd just as soon take none. The real power in 'em comes as you get more, which is just fine with me.

[Big_Jim]

Probably nobody would take Fortune's Fool over Fortunate. But then again, I don't know why anybody would take any chance feat ahead of Fortunate. Sure, if you want to max your edge manipulation, or really want to nail that Black Cat chain ASAP, then you might not. But otherwise... Fortunate FTW.

However, Fortune's Fool just moved from being stuck permanently in slot 13 out of 13 to being a contender in (almost) everybody's eyes. In fact, it's #3 on my chance monkey's list as of now.

1) Fortunate
2) Lady Luck's Smile
3) Fortune's Fool

(It'd be #4, but Grace Under Pressure from Savvy makes Fortune Favors the Bold less of an advantage than daring the GM to give me AD as he burns his against the new Fortune's Fool. )

Like Gentry said, it's how that category of feats work.

[Bill Whitmore]

Probably nobody would take Fortune's Fool over Fortunate.

Of course, you'd take Fortunate.

See, if one feat is obviously a better choice in just about every case then, in my book, there is something wrong with the feats.  So I'll go back to my previous statement.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree.  Fortune's Fool just looks like a penalized Fortunate to me. Go go house rules.

[Tamdrik]

However, Fortune's Fool just moved from being stuck permanently in slot 13 out of 13 to being a contender in (almost) everybody's eyes. In fact, it's #3 on my chance monkey's list as of now.

1) Fortunate
2) Lady Luck's Smile
3) Fortune's Fool

(It'd be #4, but Grace Under Pressure from Savvy makes Fortune Favors the Bold less of an advantage than daring the GM to give me AD as he burns his against the new Fortune's Fool. )

I don't see why you'd take Lady Luck's Smile over Fortune Favors the Bold, for reasons I've mentioned earlier (you end up getting +1 2/3 or less expected benefit, depending on action die size, vs. +2, though it does improve your chances with desperation rolls).  

And as I'm plotting out my chance-monkey, I'm still probably going to leave Fortune's Fool out entirely, favoring Fortunate; Fortune Favors the Bold; Lady Luck's Smile; Black Cat; Jinx; Bloodied, Bold, and Resolute; Lucky Break; and Living on the Edge... and then probably diversifying into other chains before considering (the new) Fortune's Fool.  But then I'm still new to FC and probably have an inherent bias against taking a feat that is in every way worse than another.  If you simply changed it to untyped (scaling) action dice, retaining the cap, that would be enough of a change to make it at least plausibly better than Fortunate in some situations.

[Big_Jim]

Ok... quick question. What feat is more likely to be taken in the unarmed combat feats list than Martial Arts? The Rage tree is the only real contender, and far more people would take Martial Arts over that path. That how Fortunate is seen by chance monkeys. The feat that most of the other feats in the category benefit the most from. How many characters with the Kicking tree don't have the Martial Arts feat? So rare as to be nil. But would you say that the Kicking tree is weak sauce compared to Martial Arts + Master's Art? Or just different sauce?

[Tamdrik]

Ok... quick question. What feat is more likely to be taken in the unarmed combat feats list than Martial Arts? The Rage tree is the only real contender, and far more people would take Martial Arts over that path. That how Fortunate is seen by chance monkeys. The feat that most of the other feats in the category benefit the most from. How many characters with the Kicking tree don't have the Martial Arts feat? So rare as to be nil. But would you say that the Kicking tree is weak sauce compared to Martial Arts + Master's Art? Or just different sauce?

I don't think this is comparable-- Fortune's Fool/Fortunate is a rare (unique?) case of a feat being strictly worse than another.  As in, Fortune's Fool has the potential to be as good as Fortunate (i.e., produce the exact same effect) if everything breaks right (or wrong, in this case).  The Kicking tree produces a completely different set of effects from Martial Arts that most would probably agree are inferior, but it's not absolutely, in all possible cases, no better than Martial Arts.

[Big_Jim]

However, Fortune's Fool just moved from being stuck permanently in slot 13 out of 13 to being a contender in (almost) everybody's eyes. In fact, it's #3 on my chance monkey's list as of now.

1) Fortunate
2) Lady Luck's Smile
3) Fortune's Fool

(It'd be #4, but Grace Under Pressure from Savvy makes Fortune Favors the Bold less of an advantage than daring the GM to give me AD as he burns his against the new Fortune's Fool. )

I don't see why you'd take Lady Luck's Smile over Fortune Favors the Bold, for reasons I've mentioned earlier (you end up getting +1 2/3 or less expected benefit, depending on action die size, vs. +2, though it does improve your chances with desperation rolls). 

Because Fortunate's AD are that sweet, sweet D4 sized. Something that has been awesome since Spycraft 1.0. Lady Luck's Smile allows for those D4 ADs to explode 50% of the time, and Grace Under Pressure is an origin version of Fortune Favors the Bold. Sure I could have taken that feat and had a 25% chance of exploding AD and a +4 bonus, but I like the 50% chance and +2. Now, with the new Fortune's Fool in the mix that'll be more D4s for sagely buddy help. More D4s are more important to me than an additional +2. Chance feat #4 will be Fortune Favors the Bold, though.

[Big_Jim]

I don't think this is comparable-- Fortune's Fool/Fortunate is a rare (unique?) case of a feat being strictly worse than another.  As in, Fortune's Fool has the potential to be as good as Fortunate (i.e., produce the exact same effect) if everything breaks right (or wrong, in this case).  The Kicking tree produces a completely different set of effects from Martial Arts that most would probably agree are inferior, but it's not absolutely, in all possible cases, no better than Martial Arts.

I think the Fortune's Fool = a weaker Fortunate is a little flawed. I don't play in a vacuum, against a computer-like GM. I play with a person. With the new Fortune's Fool, the GM has to decide if burning one of his Action Dice against my chance monkey is worth giving me yet another D4-sized AD. Any feat that makes the GM consider his AD use on a character by character basis is an advantage for the character that says "doing that to me has a downside, GM". You aren't giving the "headgame vs the GM" any value in how you see the feat. I do.

[Tamdrik]

I don't see why you'd take Lady Luck's Smile over Fortune Favors the Bold, for reasons I've mentioned earlier (you end up getting +1 2/3 or less expected benefit, depending on action die size, vs. +2, though it does improve your chances with desperation rolls). 

Because Fortunate's AD are that sweet, sweet D4 sized. Something that has been awesome since Spycraft 1.0. Lady Luck's Smile allows for those D4 ADs to explode 50% of the time, and Grace Under Pressure is an origin version of Fortune Favors the Bold. Sure I could have taken that feat and had a 25% chance of exploding AD and a +4 bonus, but I like the 50% chance and +2. Now, with the new Fortune's Fool in the mix that'll be more D4s for sagely buddy help. More D4s are more important to me than an additional +2. Chance feat #4 will be Fortune Favors the Bold, though.

Well, what I mean is that if you roll a million d4 action dice with FFtB, vs. a million d4 action dice with LLS, you'll have a higher average result with FFtB.  That said, if you're trying to roll a result so high that you're counting on an action die exploding to have a chance at making it, then yes, LLS gives you a better (though still relatively remote) shot at meeting the DC than FFtB.  It's not as clear-cut a deficiency as Fortune's Fool vs. Fortunate, and I'll still take Lady Luck's Smile-- just later than Fortune Favors the Bold.

[Tamdrik]

I think the Fortune's Fool = a weaker Fortunate is a little flawed. I don't play in a vacuum, against a computer-like GM. I play with a person. With the new Fortune's Fool, the GM has to decide if burning one of his Action Dice against my chance monkey is worth giving me yet another D4-sized AD. Any feat that makes the GM consider his AD use on a character by character basis is an advantage for the character that says "doing that to me has a downside, GM". You aren't giving the "headgame vs the GM" any value in how you see the feat. I do.

Well, you have two cases:

1) GM is averse to giving you action dice: In the extreme case, he burns all his action dice on other players, giving them more grief, since the GM still has the same number of dice to spend (albeit presumably somewhat less "efficiently").  You get almost nothing from the feat except its quality as a Chance feat and the satisfaction of knowing that action dice are being thrown at your companions instead of you.  In a lesser case, it's the same idea, only you get a small benefit, and less pain is shifted to your comrades.

2) GM doesn't care: We're back to "weaker Fortunate".

I guess there's a third case, where the GM actually feels sorry for you taking a feat that could feasibly not do much for you, so he actively spends more action dice against you to try to make it worthwhile.  I suppose that could be a plus from a whole-party perspective if he uses his dice less efficiently as a result and ends up giving you as many dice as Fortunate would.

[Gentry]

With the new Fortune's Fool, the GM has to decide if burning one of his Action Dice against my chance monkey is worth giving me yet another D4-sized AD. Any feat that makes the GM consider his AD use on a character by character basis is an advantage for the character that says "doing that to me has a downside, GM". You aren't giving the "headgame vs the GM" any value in how you see the feat. I do.

+1

Well, you have two cases:

1) GM is averse to giving you action dice: You get almost nothing from the feat

You gain quite a bit in actual play. Being able to realistically gamble on NOT having action dice used against you (less damage suffered, fewer critical hits suffered, fewer errors turned into Critical Failures, fewer opposed skill checks lost) means your action dice last you waaay longer. You get to save them for times you KNOW you need them, rather than use them to edge a roll and "be sure" you'll succeed. In practice, the new Fortune's Fool lets you do some old-time poker-style bluff and call staredowns with the GM. That kind of action, playing chicken with fate, is EXACTLY the flavor most of the Chance feats are supposed to be representing.

All that, however, is largely beside the point, which ultimately is this: if you don't like it, do what you want. It's your game. I happen to believe the feat is frickin' awesome, with lasers on its head, but that's just me.

[Tamdrik]

You gain quite a bit in actual play. Being able to realistically gamble on NOT having action dice used against you (less damage suffered, fewer critical hits suffered, fewer errors turned into Critical Failures, fewer opposed skill checks lost) means your action dice last you waaay longer. You get to save them for times you KNOW you need them, rather than use them to edge a roll and "be sure" you'll succeed. In practice, the new Fortune's Fool lets you do some old-time poker-style bluff and call staredowns with the GM. That kind of action, playing chicken with fate, is EXACTLY the flavor most of the Chance feats are supposed to be representing.

All that, however, is largely beside the point, which ultimately is this: if you don't like it, do what you want. It's your game. I happen to believe the feat is frickin' awesome, with lasers on its head, but that's just me.

*shrug*  I think you have a weird relationship with your GM. : )  I don't think ours goes through that kind of calculus when deciding whether or not to use action dice.  It's more like "will this screw them over too badly or not?"

Actually, that's one thing I find a bit weird about Crafty games, how the GM is limited and treated almost like he's playing competitively against the players (with the whole GM action dice system, and other parts of the book that "allow" the GM to do things).  I guess I'm used to the GM basically having unlimited power to do whatever the hell he wants in order to, in his judgment, produce a more interesting story and fun experience, even extending to making up rolls behind his screen if he thinks it will further the narrative.  Obviously, it still basically applies, but it seems like the system tries to pretend it doesn't.  I don't mean that to sound like criticism, exactly... it just strikes me as odd, as a newcomer to the system.