Quote from: thedungeondelver;914721I feel like with 5e I could effortlessly with no caveats snap in stuff from AD&D.  Like, I prefer the differing XP charts for each AD&D class.  I'd use those.  I'd use AD&D's saving throws.  etc.  I think adding those in would be completely without problem.

You're not the only one. My FLGS got WIPED of most of the AD&D material once people realized how easy conversion is.

Quote from: tenbones;914932There's a few of us here that really dig Fantasycraft. I'd say the most people here have never run it, or they might own it and never dug in. Most conversations about it indicate to me not having fully understood the toolbox nature of the system (or are turned off by how many levers and dials there are on it). What a lot of people don't realize is you need to "set it up" - by detailing what rules are in play and which aren't. They even recommend a "starting list" for new Fantasycraft GM's to start with - which flies over the head of every new GM I've seen use FC (including me).

FantasyCraft is probably the most inspirational RPG system I've bought that I never played. It's chock full of awesome ideas and sub-systems. Options to dial the lethality of combat up, all kinds of genuinely different races and classes, downtime rules, henchmen, organizations, etc. etc. I doubt I'll ever play it as a game. But as a source of house rules for D&D, it's brilliant. And I had hoped 5E's modularity would be something along the same lines, but it hasn't come close.

Would it be worth acquiring Fantasy Craft to hack 5e? There's a lot of stuff that I like about that edition, but I'm open to fine tuning it more to my preferences.

Quote from: Necrozius;915109Would it be worth acquiring Fantasy Craft to hack 5e? There's a lot of stuff that I like about that edition, but I'm open to fine tuning it more to my preferences.

Honestly? I've thought about this. I don't think it is. I think, at this point after much deliberation and considering what I'd do to tune 5e to my tastes, I'd ultimately be required to deconstruct 5e into its own thing as Fantasycraft is the deconstructed product of 3.x.

In this regard it would be much easier to simply re-tune Fantasycraft into a lighter system. In fact, I know there are some very active players on the Fantasycraft forums doing just that. Or just run Fantasycraft as is and pull out the crunchier bits, it would probably work better than 5e in this regard. Scale better too.

Edit: I'm biased, but like Haffrung above - I believe Fantasycraft to be one of the finest games ever to be designed. If you like RPG's in general, it's worth owning. I'm not convinced it's a fantasy heartbreaker, I think it's a victim of circumstances. It was released at almost the same time as Pathfinder and it's only a two-man show that produced it. But what a product...

Quote from: tenbones;915139Honestly? I've thought about this. I don't think it is. I think, at this point after much deliberation and considering what I'd do to tune 5e to my tastes, I'd ultimately be required to deconstruct 5e into its own thing as Fantasycraft is the deconstructed product of 3.x.

In this regard it would be much easier to simply re-tune Fantasycraft into a lighter system. In fact, I know there are some very active players on the Fantasycraft forums doing just that. Or just run Fantasycraft as is and pull out the crunchier bits, it would probably work better than 5e in this regard. Scale better too.

Edit: I'm biased, but like Haffrung above - I believe Fantasycraft to be one of the finest games ever to be designed. If you like RPG's in general, it's worth owning. I'm not convinced it's a fantasy heartbreaker, I think it's a victim of circumstances. It was released at almost the same time as Pathfinder and it's only a two-man show that produced it. But what a product...

   OK, I own the PDF and have tried reading it several times, but have bounced off each time. I think part of the issue is that it's just so dense and front-loaded with unfamiliar terms. It reminds me of HERO in some ways, but I internalized HERO twenty-five years ago (although I've never had a chance to play it), and I'm not as young and impressionable as I used to be.

   So, what's the best way to try to 'get' Fantasycraft from a reading perspective?

Quote from: Krimson;914953You're not the only one. My FLGS got WIPED of most of the AD&D material once people realized how easy conversion is.

I'm hardcore 1e AD&D but if someone asked me to run a campaign with 5e, I'd do it in a heartbeat because I can add stuff from AD&D in that easily.  Dispense with 2 magic-user classes and collapse them back into the single, boom, done.  Or conversely if someone wanted to use the Backgrounds from 5e in a 1e game I was running, I'd have no problem with that.

I was told before I bought it said: forget everything you know about 3.x/Pathfinder and read the book twice and take your time. I've found that to be very true for a couple of good reasons.

1) 3.x/PF knowledge will interfere with absorption due to assumptions. If you're familiar with 3.x/PF - you'll understand all the basic elements. Stats are the same, Class bonuses are generally the same, you'll understand the basic chassis of 3.x immediately. But you'll be prone to skip stuff because you think you already understand a given mechanic or sub-system when in reality it might have some subtle change that impacts things elsewhere and cause unnecessary confusion. The conceits of Fantasycraft are subtly different than 3.x/PF - but those differences due to the balancing of the game have very different outcomes.

2) Density. Yep. It's dense as shit. But there is a good reason for it - you're not reading just a Players Handbook. The Fantasycraft book is a PHB, DMG and MM all rolled into one. That's another thing that most people don't realize. And those subsystems and options are interlocked across all three groups of rules.

This is why it's worth taking your time. Many of the "revolutionary ideas" in 5e are already extant (and handled better in Fantasycraft) - Archetypes, Backgrounds etc. are imo, given better weight and balance in Fantasycraft.

Big differences:

All Stats Matter - Every stat is utilized in the subsystems to matter. Stat-dumping is almost non-existent. All classes need various stats for various reasons. Even spellcasting requires Mages to NEED Wisdom, Cha and Int. Thieves need more than just Dex. Fighters need more than just Str. and Con.

Class Balance - To combat LFQM - Fantasycraft doesn't dumb casters down to the level of non-casters. It doubles-down on the efficacy of non-casters at what they do. As an example Fighters (Soldiers) in Fantasycraft a deathdealing monsters in combat. Not only are they good at using any weapon, with their weapons and fighting styles they choose to specialize in - they can end a fight as easily as any caster could. Plus the game has a fairly robust skill-list with tons of mechanical examples of options to use each skill in various ways that give non-casters more options.

Armorclass - Fantasycraft uses a Defense stat granted to each class that scales with level. Armor absorbs damage. And it definitely matters - wearing Plate armor makes you a veritable tank - most smaller weapons are dinking you for piddly, if any, damage. Of course there are ways around this - with Armor-Piercing, called shots, Feats. But Armor certainly is a big deal.

Health - Fantasycraft used Vitality(HP) and Wounds (Con score). If you score a critical - you bypass Vitality and the damage goes straight to Wounds. Yeah... remember what I said about Soldiers and non-casters being *dangerous* - this is why. Sneak-attacks go to Wounds as another example.

Spellcasting - Arcane casters need three stats to determine their ability as a Caster. Spellcasting is a Skill, so that introduces a chance to fail. Intelligence gives you bonuses to that skill-check, Wisdom dictates how many spells your caster can know, Charisma dictates what the spell DC save penalty is. So you see, this completely changes the dynamic from D&D and solves a few irritating issues about stat-dumping and creates a more dynamic set of dials to customize your character.

It uses a Spellpoint system with a cost and DC to the spellcheck based on the level of the spell. With success, the spell is cast and its effect occurs. With failure, the spell is not cast and has no effect (a sentient target feels a hostile force or tingle but cannot deduce the nature or origin of the sensation). With a critical success, the caster regains the spell points spent to cast the spell. With a critical failure, his confidence is shaken and he suffers a –5 penalty with Spellcasting checks until he succeeds with a Spellcasting check or until the end of the current scene, whichever comes first.

No Itemization-as-Balance - So no more collecting 40+ items on your career path. One of the odd outcomes of D&D for non-casters is the idea that there is some assumed balance for these classes in the form of magic-items. Which of course causes demands on the game for ever-increasing numbers of magic items of greater power to justify the scaling of monsters and casters. In Fantasycraft, most magic-items scale with the character. They tend to be less powerful, because most of the cool abilities for each character are cooked into their classes and Feats. So they have a system for PC's to keep their signature items. Which can be ignored as needed.

There are obviously other important differences, but they're ones that have to do with internal balances - Feats for instances are *powerful*. They have sub-systems for social rules (including combat), infrastructure management, campaign design, monster creation, etc. Tons of optional rules.

As for where to start? Read it twice, decide what rules you want to be inherent to the game, run a couple of combats to get the feel. Re-tune it. Once you're done, your game should run pretty much like a machine. This is directly lifted from a sidebar in the book:

Fantasy Craft is loaded with options — enough to be overwhelming the first time out, especially if you or your players haven't played d20 or OGL games. Make it easy on yourself — stick to the basics and introduce new rules as your confidence grows.

Before running your first combat, read pages 203–207 to get a handle on the core rules — initiative, movement, attacks, defense, and injury. Master those before getting fancy. Design an encounter using a mob of standard NPCs with relatively few rules, like the Goon or Mercenary rogues (see   page   246). Fill out an NPC tracking sheet (see   page   400) so you don't have to pick up the book midstream, and use simple initiative, rolling once for each side. If you have miniatures and a battle mat, you may want to use those too; they make determining range and movement much easier.

If you're really new to game mastery, you can also stick to basic combat actions like Standard Attacks and Standard Moves until you're ready for more sophisticated maneuvers. And don't worry if you don't fully grasp the rules the very first time out. It takes practice and comes easier with experience. The game is modular, so you can add rules in pieces as you prefer. Start with things
that intrigue you most — perhaps a few NPC qualities, damage types, conditions, and tricks. You may never end up incorporating the whole of Chapter 5, and that's OK — the rules will always be there if you need them!

Quote from: estar;914912Toward the end of its run, they came out with Skills and Powers for AD&D 2e. It gave 2e a point based character generation.

The 2e DMG pg 22-23 has optional rules for creating a class. Not quite as modular as the BX version but worked kinda.

Skills & Powers came out in 95 and was an interesting take on character generation. Too bad it gets maligned so much.
I would not call it modular though. Customizable yes. Modular not quite. You still cant swap in parts from other classes with the point buy system since each class has its own roster geared to its style. Though I think some you could probably go for. Others like HD boosts you cant as its the same cost for each class so I wouldnt allow a wizard to purchase a fighters 12 HD boost for a mere 10 build points. Hence why its not modular. Though I do believe with a little tweaking it could have been.

Though one thing been thinking of in 5e is this... A class picking up a class path from another class instead of their own. Obviously some dont quite work. But a wizard going for the Battlemaster path from the fighter for example would work. Or a fighter instead taking the Assassins path.

This has all sorts of potential without breaking the game balance. A fighter taking one of the wizard paths isnt going to gain the wizards spellcasting. But would gain paths perks. Like the Transmutation path. The fighter would gain the Alchemy power at level 2 and the Transmutation Stone at 6 and Polymorph at 10 and so on.

I was thinking of the exact same thing: letting a class pick an archetype from another. It would obviously need some tweaking for things like abilities that build on core class things, but I think it has potential.

Quote from: Omega;915196Skills & Powers came out in 95 and was an interesting take on character generation. Too bad it gets maligned so much.
I would not call it modular though. Customizable yes. Modular not quite. You still cant swap in parts from other classes with the point buy system since each class has its own roster geared to its style. Though I think some you could probably go for. Others like HD boosts you cant as its the same cost for each class so I wouldnt allow a wizard to purchase a fighters 12 HD boost for a mere 10 build points. Hence why its not modular. Though I do believe with a little tweaking it could have been.

I agree entirely with this. Skills & Powers gets a bad rap, and as you point out you can really screw your game up if you're not careful, you could use it to create your own brand of D&D that worked well for you. I'd love to see something like this for 5e with actual modularity as the core design principle.

Quote from: Omega;915196Though one thing been thinking of in 5e is this... A class picking up a class path from another class instead of their own. Obviously some dont quite work. But a wizard going for the Battlemaster path from the fighter for example would work. Or a fighter instead taking the Assassins path.

This has all sorts of potential without breaking the game balance. A fighter taking one of the wizard paths isnt going to gain the wizards spellcasting. But would gain paths perks. Like the Transmutation path. The fighter would gain the Alchemy power at level 2 and the Transmutation Stone at 6 and Polymorph at 10 and so on.

Another good idea. The problem is that the entirety of 5e would have to be deconstructed down to the "studs" and rebuilt as it's own "Skills & Powers" to make it work uniformly. Otherwise, yeah you're going to have to pick-and-choose and tinker with each Archetype/Class combination. Which can get tedious. I'd be willing to bet after a few rounds of doing this, one would realize it would be better served in doing the full-blown deconstruction route.

Even still I don't think Class/Archetype mixing alone would be enough for my tastes. It would be a good step in the right direction tho.

I've thought for over twenty years that Skills and Powers' problems were in execution and exposing latent issues with the AD&D classes, rather than the core concept. (I also think High-Level Campaigns has some interesting ideas that merit exploration and refinement.)

I would say you're not wrong. But if you were prone to home-brew (like most people I knew) - then it *kinda* gave you some semi-official direction to curb our enthusiasm in some cases, or to be more liberal in our views on certain mechanics.

The end-result was still a mish-mash of shit. I mean I had PC's using Oriental Adventure Martial Arts, Skills & Powers Open-hand rules, Spell-points, Critical and fumbles and all sorts of Proficiency Slot rules from all over the place.

BUT... it's the kernel of the idea that trying to deconstruct/reconstruct the core mechanics to your taste was on the table with an actual pseudo-baseline guide. I did get a lot of enjoyment out of it. In honest hindsight - I think it never quite worked right for the very reasons you cite.

I can't say it with absolute total certainty, but I MAY have been the first person in the design of the rules to bring up the term "modularity", and I certainly was one of its strongest champions.

Modularity as I understood the term, and as the term was always used in all my experiences in the design of 5e, was never about being able to switch around powers and abilities of different classes with each other.  What "Modularity" meant was that the rules themselves could be easily worked with and altered; this was not a feature of 3e for example. In 3e, let's say you hated attacks of opportunity and wanted to get rid of them; you couldn't just say "ok, no attacks of opportunity" and that was it; because getting rid of AoO, or even modifying those rules, changed a ton of other things that were all interconnected: it would change or render useless certain class abilities, certain feats, prestige classes, etc etc.
Basically, you were 'trapped' within the rules as they were written unless you were willing to make a great deal of work.

The idea in 5e is that you could fairly easily pick and choose just how many of the rules you wanted to make use of. The difference between the D&D Basic rules and the rules as they appear in the PHB are an example of that. One of the main goals with this is that you could easily alter the rules to fit different styles and genres; you get some guidelines for how to do this in the DMG, with suggestions if you want to make a more 'lethal' or old-school style campaign, for example.

Which is exactly what it accomplishes and is why it feels so much like 2e.

Quote from: RPGPundit;916141Modularity as I understood the term, and as the term was always used in all my experiences in the design of 5e, was never about being able to switch around powers and abilities of different classes with each other.  What "Modularity" meant was that the rules themselves could be easily worked with and altered; this was not a feature of 3e for example. In 3e, let's say you hated attacks of opportunity and wanted to get rid of them; you couldn't just say "ok, no attacks of opportunity" and that was it; because getting rid of AoO, or even modifying those rules, changed a ton of other things that were all interconnected: it would change or render useless certain class abilities, certain feats, prestige classes, etc etc.

It depends on how granular you design the modularity. In this case, yes, you can't do these things with D&D because it makes no pretense in trying to balance the granular mechanics you're describing. Further these mechanics, especially in 3e/4e are too integrated into the rest of the downstream subsystems that, as you pointed out, would have to fundamentally be overhauled if you make a change upstream.

Quote from: RPGPundit;916141The idea in 5e is that you could fairly easily pick and choose just how many of the rules you wanted to make use of. The difference between the D&D Basic rules and the rules as they appear in the PHB are an example of that. One of the main goals with this is that you could easily alter the rules to fit different styles and genres; you get some guidelines for how to do this in the DMG, with suggestions if you want to make a more 'lethal' or old-school style campaign, for example.

Except the game doesn't mechanically scale with it's relative systems all that well once you start tweaking. I mean even WotC and legions of players can't even get the Ranger Class "right"... even NOW. 5e is *better* than previous editions in most regards, but its reliance on older D&D conventions still requires a lot of overhauling if you want to change something. I consider making Archetype and Background changes/creation pretty much the limit of "easy". After that you're going to have to do some real overhauling.

Want to create a new Magic System because you don't like the current one? What if you're like me and want a more robust Martial Arts system that's not "just class/archetype/levels/weapon"? Or what if you want to introduce Psionics that is fundamentally different than Magic? Or what if you want different applications of Feat/Stat progression. I'm sure others can come up with more.

I think a BIG part of the problem is not just the light-touch they did in terms of modularity, but the extremely conservative production-schedule they've adhered to since launch. When I compare their released product line and the overall content compared to say - FFG, whose business model is pretty much the same (Corebooks and Adventure-splats with rules sprinkled across the line.) FFG has produced an amazing amount of quality material for three lines of games that has easily plugged most holes that existed at launch. 5e still feels pretty vanilla and lackluster in their attempts to push more than fluff and adventures. Which is fine - if that's all you want.

TL/DR - the dials and switches to "tune" the 5e system are pretty basic in terms of what I consider "modular". It's like the difference between having a Trebel/Bass dial and having a full multi-channel equalizer. I want a multi-channel-equalizer (but I know I'm never going to get one).