>Previous Thread: >>47548797 →
>Pastebin
http://pastebin.com/PPptBB5u
http://www.mediafire.com/download/n7htcqyqk0y0acy/%5BWtF%5DThe_Pack.PDF
>Latest News
http://theonyxpath.com/now-available-v20-ghouls-revenants/
The V20 Ghouls book is out!
>richfags
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/184039?affiliate_id=13&src=TheOnyxPath
>poorfags
http://www.mediafire.com/download/a1kpjrm41yzozkq/V20_Ghouls_%26_Revenants.pdf
>Question
Question: What is the level of heroism that you prefer in your games? Are your characters struggling against the world that they live in or just cynically scraping to get by?
>>47578117
>What is the level of heroism that you prefer in your games?
There are no heroes left in man. I don't want heroes, I want regular people reacting to the unbelievable, I want their weird human hang ups to come into play, I don't want them to be played as too savvy and aware / accepting of what's going on like most players tend to do it.
I want to see people who make mistakes because they're scared, or who run rather than fight in most situations. That's why I stopped running games for groups that were mostly Shadowrun vets and stuck to storygamers and Call of Cthulhu players. They're the ones you can count on to play personal horror games properly.
>>47578117
It feels like a copout to say "an average amount", so let me try to clarify:
I don't go out of my way to create a heroic tone for my games. It's a world where people make good and bad choices for reasons that made sense to them at the time, and the consequences that would arise. If someone does something that'll drastically affect their world for the better, however, I'll give it to them. More often than not, they earned it after the obstacles I throw at them.
>>47578117
You can try to be a hero, but at massive personal cost.
It is a horror setting, y'know.
>>47578073
Chen.
>>47578077
You are currently doing a deplorable job of creating good faith for people interested in Mage 2e. Rather than go, "I apologize, but I am currently busy sorting through the copious amounts of errata and FAQ questions I have already been given. In time, you might see your concerns addressed by the errata or the FAQ," you indignantly cry, and I quote:
>Today's bullshit has just pushed me beyond the point of "you can wait and see if it gets answered in the final book or the initial faq."
If you are leaving your game open to criticism, you should be prepared to take it from people who have just picked up the game a few days ago and started to go through its mechanics.
>>47578153
>He's the one who broke 4e before it was even released, and created a build that through a rather spurious reading of RULES AS WRITTEN made a character that can take a billion attacks
The 4e build in question was fully legal, down to the point wherein an official errata had to be issued to repair it. That was for the best.
>When you choose to apply substantial spell factors, YOU ARE NO LONGER CASUALLY CASTING THE SPELL.
In that case, the mage *wants* to take substantial spellcasting penalties so that they can bring in their Yantra bonuses and spellcasters. As long as they have 5 successes to work with, the chances of failure are very, very slim.
5 dice: 83.19% chance of success
4 dice: 75.99% chance of success
3 dice: 65.7% chance of success
2 dice: 51% chance of success
1 die: 30% chance of success
Final chance of failure: ~0.21%
>>47578204
Is this an actual, confirmed piece of errata, then?
"A mage ALWAYS takes the penalty for successive attempts on spellcasting, even if they are under neither time constraints nor pressure"?
This would actually be a reasonable rule, although again, 5 dice is enough to practically ensure a success and only a ~21% chance of failure.
>>47578299
wew lad
>>47578077
Honestly I'm glad your getting paid Mage 2E is a fantastic book that fixed every problem I ever had with Mage 1E.
Although I did have exactly two problems with two spells. I already question it in the FAQ, so I'll just wait patiently for that.
>>47578239
>It literally is in the book.
It is not, in fact, in the book as written.
Mage: The Awakening 2e, page 117: "Sometimes characters desire to cast spells or create effects that should be easy and require little risk or effort from the mage. Often these spells are effects that the mage creates on a regular basis, and the risk of failure is small and has little to no impact on the drama of the story. Determining spell factor penalties and Yantra bonuses for these kinds of spells is cumbersome. In these cases, just have players roll Gnosis + Arcanum. Success on the roll equals a successful casting. If the player wanted to affect multiple subjects, or create a large effect with the spellcasting, then the number of success may determine the number of subjects or the size of an area affected by the spell effect. For example, if a mage wanted to revive all the dead roses in a garden, she could roll Gnosis + Life and each success would equal a 5 meter radius of revived roses."
Mage: The Awakening 2e, page 214: "Successive Attempts: When you fail a roll, you may be able to try again. If time is not an issue and your character is under no pressure to perform, you may make successive attempts with your full dice pool. In the far more likely situation that time is short and the situation is tense, each subsequent attempt has a cumulative –1 die penalty — so the third time a character tries to break down the door that’s keeping her inside a burning building, her roll has a –2 die penalty. Successive attempts do not apply to extended actions."
Either there is no penalty for spells cast in a situation with neither time constraints nor pressure, or the book is wrong and DaveB should issue errata to repair that.
And, from the look of >>47578204, it seems that DaveB actually will issue errata for this.
>>47578299
Please. PLEASE. Shut up. You're the fucking worst. You're worse than Carmilla at his worst and Hentai Larp-chan PUT TOGETHER.
>>47578371
I dunno, by now Carmilla would have gone off on a rant about Bud Light, cigarettes and their 'GTA inspired' game. All those things always get a chuckle out of me, it's like he's a low-rent version of RPGPundit.
>>47578371
Aren't Carmilla and Hentai Larp-chan the same person? Cause boy do they seem to be at times.
>>47578299
>You are currently doing a deplorable job of creating good faith for people interested in Mage 2e.
Fuck off, Touhoufag. You are literally incapable of good faith. You also aren't cognitively capable of playing Mage, for the same reason you couldn't grasp the pun-based Demon power, and for the same reason that you suck the life out of every Legends of the Wulin game you join.
Learn when you are incompatible with a game, and leave it.
Not that you'll respond to this because your autism will refuse to let you leave anything alone until people have the good sense to ignore you. Then you get on IRC and spam the exact same questions at everyone still talking to you.
>>47578299
>>47578365
>>47578299
If you guys are going to spend two threads arguing about an extremely esoteric rules conversation, could you at least make your own thread about it?
>>47578177
>I want regular people reacting to the unbelievable
In what way is that not a hero?
>>47578299
>>47578365
>You are currently doing a deplorable job of creating good faith for people interested in Mage 2e
You're harassing the man and ignoring him when he explains things to you. You're ignoring most of the thread when they explain things to you.
It has been repeatedly explained to you how this system works. Please stop ignoring people. You are literally quibbling over what you feel is a vagueness in the rules that no one else agrees with you about. Dave isn't issuing an errata so much as making it much more clear to people like you how the rules work.
>>47578259
One guy tried to be a hero during the prelude. That's how he wound up with the permanent wound flaw post embrace.
>>47578613
>In what way is that not a hero?
Depends on the reaction, doesn't it? What if, when faced with the vampire you find feeding on people in your neighborhood you just try and steer it toward people you don't like, or you use its presence to explain someone else's behavior and scapegoat them.
"My wife would never have left me for that other man, he must in league with that vampire who can control people's minds! I bet he's even one of them! Burn'em all!"
Apparently, a -10 or more penalty from spell factors is enough to constitute "pressure," allowing a mage to circumvent the "down and dirty spellcasting" rules. However, they take a cumulative -1 die penalty for each failed attempt. How much does this actually affect the mage?
A mage with Gnosis 3, Fate 2, Mind 3, a Rote for Exceptional Luck, a Rote for Augment Mind, and a relevant Rote specialty skill at 5 wants to boost four of their Mental or Social Attributes by +4.
They cast Exceptional Luck over the course of three turns. They spend a free Reach on instant action casting, a free Reach on Advanced Duration, and two free Reaches to affect casting. They take a -10 penalty on Potency. Their dice pool is Gnosis 3 + Fate 2 + Mantra 2 + Mudra 6 + Tool 1 - spell factors 10, for a dice pool of 4.
4 dice: 75.99% chance of success
3 dice: 65.7% chance of success
2 dice: 51% chance of success
1 die: 30% chance of success
They have a ~2.82% chance of failing, far less if they actually spend Willpower.
Once they succeed, they have a Potency 12 Exceptional Luck up, granting them a +12 bonus to their next 12 spellcasting rolls within the next hour.
They now cast Augment Mind over the course of three turns. They spend a free Reach for instant action casting, a free Reach for Advanced Duration, and a free Reach to affect two separate Attributes. They take a -10 penalty on Potency, a -8 penalty for a year-long Advanced Duration, and a -4 penalty to affect four subjects. Their final dice pool is 5.
5 dice: 83.19% chance of success
4 dice: 75.99% chance of success
3 dice: 65.7% chance of success
2 dice: 51% chance of success
1 die: 30% chance of success
They have a ~0.21% chance of failure.
Once they succeed, they grant +4 to two Mental or Social Attributes to four targets, with an Advanced Duration of an entire year.
>>47578613
Even with DaveB's intended errata, it is still trivial for a starting, 0 XP mage to supercharge themselves and their friends for an entire year.
>>47578613
You mean the part where the other thread kept putting their fingers in their ear, following with one of these responses?
>Dev rulings that aren't in the book actually matter
>RAI is actually more important then RAW
>RAW shouldn't match RAI
>WHITE ROOM WHITE ROOM NO ONE WOULD EVER LET YOU
>You just don't UNDERSTAND, MAN
>SHUT UP YOU AUTIST
Go fuck yourself.
>>47578711
Why does any of this matter? So you gamed the system to get a benefit, good for you. If there's an ST dumb enough to let you use it then shame on them, otherwise it's all academic and any patch Dave puts on this will amount to 'Storytellers should use their discretion' or just a flat out hamstring of one of those fiddly mechanics on the fly, arbitrarily turned into a roadblock just to appease your autism.
>Pangaeans are not spirits and are unaffected by anything that would affect a spirit only. One of the Wise who wishes to use magic on a Pangaean must use the Spirit and either Life or Matter Arcana.
Could someone explain this to me. Does this mean you need add Spirit and Life (Matter) to any spell you attempt to cast on them? Such as attempting to read their thoughts with Mind.
Or only when you attempt to use spells on them like attempting to increase their Rank, basically Patterning or Unraveling spells.
>>47578299
fuck off
>>47578299
Weren't you Banned from 4/Chan? How are here.
>>47578711
>Once they succeed, they have a Potency 12 Exceptional Luck up, granting them a +12 bonus to their next 12 spellcasting rolls within the next hour.
bonus from the same source can't go above +5 unless otherwise stated
>>47578711
>Even with DaveB's intended errata, it is still trivial for a starting, 0 XP mage to supercharge themselves and their friends for an entire year.
you haven't even seen the errata yet
>>47578784
You stupid, whining cunt. It is 100% in line with the rules, using their magic, the point of the fucking game.
How is an ST dumb for letting them USE THE POWERS AS WRITTEN?
>Points problem with the rule
>It doesn't matter
This is the fucking defense you shit out, and it is absolutely disgusting.
>>47578831
>Or only when you attempt to use spells on them like attempting to increase their Rank, basically Patterning or Unraveling spells.
This one
>unaffected by anything that would affect a spirit only
Mindreading can work on anything
>>47578784
Excepting the penalty-for-failure thing (which is a consequence of the core rules not being written with magic in mind and will be clarified), the main drawback to these shenanigans are...
1) Mana. Your mage either has a Legacy allowing Mind and Fate (some do) or one of those spells is requiring Mana.
2) It's all fun and games until some asshole dispels it.
So.. Can a starting Mage give himself Int 5? Sure. Why not. Go for it. Fill your spell control with buffing spells.
>>47578711
Addendum: The spell stacking rules on page 118 concern what happens when a mage tries to stack a bonus to the *same* aspect of a character.
There is nothing stopping our Fate 2, Mind 3 mage from casting Augment Mind yet again, this time targeting another pair of Mental or Social Attributes to receive +4 bonuses... for an entire year... for four separate people (i.e. the whole cabal, or maybe just people the mage likes).
>>47578784
What I am saying is that DaveB's proposed errata to spellcasting does little to curtail mages who seek to gain tremendous benefits right out of the gate.
That mage whose entire cabal is walking around with +4 to four Mental or Social Attributes for an entire year can then repeat the same trick for Exceptional Luck, gaining a +12 bonus to whatever pleases them, up to and including spellcasting.
>>47578897
>bonus from the same source can't go above +5 unless otherwise stated
As per page 213 of Mage 2e, the limit of a +5 bonus applies to circumstances and equipment. At no point is it applied to bonuses derived from spellcasting.
>>47578856
Rampant Touhou fanfaggotry. This is not the sign of a stable person.
>>47578916
I'm saying that troglodyte autists like you will find shaky mechanics in any system to exploit, then whine and cry when someone says that no ST using common sense would allow it.
>>47578960
It's 100% in the rules. Why shouldn't they allow it?
"Because it's too strong/game breaking!"
Then it should be dealt with by the designers to make sure it doesn't come up as an issue in the first place. It's the job of the game designer and writers to make sure that the game is as smooth and functional as possible without forcing groups to houserule things. Houserules should exist to make the game fit the group's style and personality, NOT to fix shit that the designers couldn't be arsed to fix themselves, period.
>>47578946
>As per page 213 of Mage 2e, the limit of a +5 bonus applies to circumstances and equipment.
You're reading it wrong, it's just saying how bonuses from circumstances and equipment work, not that nothing else is limited by it
it's frequently called out through the books as a limit
the only thing that goes beyond it is the bonus from clues
>>47578936
Dave, please go away. You shouldn't have to bear with this. It's also going to make the rest of us look bad.
>>47578936
DUDE BEASTS LMAO!!!
>>47578936
Say Dave sense Pangaeans have Arcane do they get the Attainments along with them?
>>47578960
If people can "exploit" a system by just using the rules, then the system is at fault and it's putting the ST under pressure to patch what's broken.
It's better to fix it rather than have it stay broken and "let the ST fix everything".
Why would I want to buy a book that has me houseruling every damn thing to keep my players from having wildly different power levels? I'd rather have something that works without me having to make a dozen judgement calls right out the gate. No-one's got time for that bullshit.
>>47579026
That's exactly what Dave is doing.
Until the official final copy of the book is out, though, according to you, none of that matters, because it's all just "Dev rulings that aren't in the book"
>>47579047
>It's also going to make the rest of us look bad.
you're Anonymous on /tg/ and regularly talk with aspel
there's nothing you can do to make yourself look bad
>>47579094
Yeah, if I want to play an out of the box broken game, I'll just go bring up the Pathfinder SRD.
Least that shit's free.
>>47578711
>Even with DaveB's intended errata, it is still trivial for a starting, 0 XP mage to supercharge themselves and their friends for an entire year.
No one cares. The rules mechanically allow quite a lot of things. The actual game, as played at the table, on the other hand, does not.
>>47578783
No, people pointed out that RAW *is* being ignored.
>>47578831
Only if it would ONLY affect a Spirit. I think Mind spells do require you to use Spirit when dealing with Spirits, but Mind effects animals as well, so you're good.
>>47578856
Rolling IP.
>>47578916
>>47579026
Because it's not what's written. You can't take a -10 penalty and then repeatedly roll 1 die until you succeed. Also, STs often overrule the book. Games can't function otherwise, because fringe cases can never be taken into account. Your ST is the one who decides whether your 100 dice pool means shit when you try to tell someone to shoot themselves without a supernatural power.
>>47578946
Magic doesn't count as a circumstance?
>>47579094
But this is a situation that a) is not actually legal, and b) is not something any ST would allow.
You cannot cover every single situation. Why focus on the ones that will never actually come up?
>>47579094
>>47579119
>HURR DURR WHAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS GIVE ME 100% FLAWLESS SYSTEMS IMMEDIATELY WITH NO PLAYTESTING OR ERRATA
>>47579112
Outside of all your cries of "IT DOESN'T MATTER FUCK OFF AUTIST!"
You are actively trying to shut down people talking about problems with the system.
>>47579036
Not 2hou faggot, because he is getting on my fucking nerves, even though I agree with him to a certain degree on some shit. Where is this limit mentioned? As far as I see, magic doesn't give a shit about it.
>>47579094
it's not something that has to be patched
mage is about using magic and dealing with that
just like a werewolf can slaughter entire cities of people
they're things you deal with in-game
only the shittiest of dm's would just change the rules to keep you from doing what the game intends
>>47579156
under the rules for rolling dice and modifiers
>>47578936
>1) Mana. Your mage either has a Legacy allowing Mind and Fate (some do) or one of those spells is requiring Mana.
Neither of these spells requires Mana, DaveB.
>2) It's all fun and games until some asshole dispels it.
Fortunately, dispellation still has to go through a Withstand rating.
>So.. Can a starting Mage give himself Int 5? Sure. Why not. Go for it. Fill your spell control with buffing spells.
Two spells (across a whole cabal, for a year) takes up only two slots for spell control.
>>47578960
Remember my intentions here. What I would like is a smooth, decently-balanced game. No game can be perfect, but a game should strive to have mechanical integrity.This is also why I champion Urban Shadows, a PbtA clone of WoD, as a superior alternative to actual WoD. It does have its balance flaws, like the Aware (deliberately) being a very weak crash-and-burn playbook, and the Wizard (unsurprisingly) being being by far the most powerful playbook.
>>47579036
At no point does page 213 actually limit bonuses from spellcasting to +5.
>>47579140
No, we entertained the discussion of the problems for a while, and then you guys kept fucking hammering the nail after it was all the way in.
We get it. The system has issues. It's being errata'd. Shut the fuck up, already.
>>47579138
When people say "shut up, I don't want to hear criticism" then that generally means the criticism isn't going to be taken into account in the final book.
This is in fact why the queries are being brought up as issues now, SO that it can be a better system.
>>47579126
>But this is a situation that a) is not actually legal, and b) is not something any ST would allow.
Uh, dude?
>>47578936
The DEV JUST SAID IT'S RULES LEGIT. Holy shit you have no awareness.
>>47579184
No, you shoved your fingers in your ears near instantly and now screech anytime he posts. See >>47579195
>>47579181
>At no point does page 213 actually limit bonuses from spellcasting to +5.
modifiers (of all kinds) are repeatedly limited to 5 from the same source, it's the core system
nowhere does it say magic ignores that rule (like it does for clues)
>Clues can go above the normal +5 limit on dice bonuses; they’re limited only by the character’s Investigation Skill.
>>47579184
But the errata DOESN'T HELP. The same problem's still there, even with errata.
>>47579181
>Neither of these spells requires Mana, DaveB.
Non-Ruling Improvised Spells require Mana, fampai
>Two spells (across a whole cabal, for a year) takes up only two slots for spell control.
That leaves you with 0 free spell control slots at Gnosis 1, or 1 at Gnosis 3. Have fun spending extra Reach for every spell you cast.
>At no point does page 213 actually limit bonuses from spellcasting to +5.
Page 126
>Any spell that increases a Trait beyond the target’s natural maximum costs a point of Mana. Remember that high-Gnosis mages and other supernatural creatures may have Trait maximums higher than 5. The “Trait maximum” for an equipment bonus is always +5.
>>47579140
But this isn't an actual problem. This is a manufactured bullshit problem that doesn't actually exist and relies on flat out ignoring parts of the system and rules lawyering that you're not under pressure. It's the same as saying that you can tell someone to commit suicide by forcing their Doors. The mechanics don't allow you to do that because there's a built in system of "if the ST tells you no, too bad".
>>47579156
Why assume magic is treated differently?
>>47579181
Except that the game does run smoothly. You're grabbing the wheel of the hatchback and driving it off road and arguing that it should be paved. The game does have as much mechanical integrity in this situation as is necessary. You're ignoring all of that. Urban Shadows or any other rules lite game is not going to be a "superior alternative" for people who want to play the Chronicles of Darkness. That you can't seem to comprehend that is part of the problem.
>>47579197
The first thing he says is pointing out that magic takes penalties for failures, which is the core to the method.
>>47579179
>>47579233
Well, that fucking blows for my frenzy-vamp. I had no idea it capped, so I've been giving him an extra 6 dice due to blood potency instead of capping it at 5.
>>47579272
Yeah, fuck you. Read
>>47579094
and
>>47579026
until it sinks through your thick skull, ban evader.
>>47579226
>No, you shoved your fingers in your ears near instantly
No, we entertained it for a bit. When he started making repeat posts to say the exact same thing over and over again, and straight-up ignoring people, we got sick of it.
At this point, he's just posting to post and make people made.
>>47579298
fairly sure rose did make an exception for that but I don't know where
still, that's just a one die change, the same with the magic buff, giving yourself a +5 isn't exactly shit compared to a +7, they're both huge bonuses
>>47579047
So, here's the thing. To pick four non-random examples;
Chaos Mastery. Boy, is this spell's wording fucked up. I have no idea where that +Fate thing came from, the spell never says (though points to those who figured it out) that it affects probability within an Area of Effect; most uses will be on everything in an area, but if you wanted to control one random thing you could just have that as a subjct, I suppose. Ooo. Lottery balls! I digress.
So yeah. Chaos Mastery. All fucked up. Was flagged to be rewritten on day two of errata gathering. Haven't responded to people about it because haven't rewritten it yet.
Healing Spells. Why so high Practice? People have made compelling arguments, seriously considering making Knit able to heal lethal.
Mages get willpower back from sleeping. I was bemused at the massve thread about this one until I checked and - no, none of the 2e cores *do* say so, published or unpublished (I checked Promethean and Changeling, too). Despite other rules referencing it, like Knit in Mage or the mechanics of how soul shock works in Beast. So I escalated it up to Rose; the reason it's not in the core rules chapter is because vampires don't, vampire was first, and no one realized to add it back in. Have added it back in.
Ban allows Mastigos to murder people by suffocation. Well... Yes. It does. That's why we even wrote a sidebar about how much air people need.
Something being flagged for attention does not necessarily mean it will get changed. Sometimes it's a wording thing, it being clear in our heads but not to readers. Sometimes its a legacy issue from the Storytelling Rules base that I have to go talk to other devs about. And sometimes the rule is doing exactly what it's meant to.
Mages taking great pains to buff their Attributes? Eh. Anon's example is absurd in how extreme it is, but fundamentally, if the player wants to put all his eggs in that basket, go for it.
>>47579126
>The actual game, as played at the table, on the other hand, does not.
The written rules should synchronize with how the game is meant to be played on the table.
>Because it's not what's written. You can't take a -10 penalty and then repeatedly roll 1 die until you succeed.
Fortunately, my post in >>47578711 shows that even with the cumulative penalty, it is still fully possible to achieve remarkable results at character creation.
>But this is a situation that a) is not actually legal
DaveB has acknowledged that it is actually legal in >>47578946
>>47579233
>>47579298
If DaveB states that Exceptional Luck works as I have described it, then Exceptional Luck, at least, can certainly go higher than +%.
>>47579270
>Non-Ruling Improvised Spells require Mana, fampai
Rotes remove that cost, and the character in >>47578711 has Rotes for both spells.
>That leaves you with 0 free spell control slots at Gnosis 1, or 1 at Gnosis 3. Have fun spending extra Reach for every spell you cast.
The character in >>47578711 has Gnosis 3. A free spell control slot is enough to handle active spells over the course of one's business.
>>The “Trait maximum” for an equipment bonus is always +5.
Exceptional Luck does *not* confer an equipment bonus.
>>47579348
The literal first post to him was "I don't want to argue with you, autist, go away".
>>47579389
The first post was not the only post. Other people, including me, entertained it for a bit.
Singling out an example from one poster doesn't make it true of all the others.
>>47579181
>Neither of these spells requires Mana, DaveB.
Actually, you are quite right - I glazed over the third to fifteenth time you posted it and missed that you were using a rote for both.
>>47579320
>ban evader
What? Also, as I've pointed out, it isn't in the rules. It involves ignoring the explicit rules on ST judgement to treat "may" as "definitely 100% always can".
>>47579356
I think the poster you're quoting was saying "Dave, please save yourself, you don't deserve this headache".
>>47579386
>The written rules should synchronize with how the game is meant to be played on the table.
They do not synchronize, and the first thing Dave said was about the penalty for repeat attempts. "Equipment bonus" does not necessarily mean an actual piece of equipment, and situations also apply.
>>47579386
>Exceptional Luck does *not* confer an equipment bonus.
Higher up on the same page.
>Spells that grant or increase equipment bonuses count as Trait bonuses. This also applies to spells that simply increase a dice pool.
Would anyone by chance be interested in joining a Hunter game? I've talked about the game a few times in the general before, where in the group was hired by a demon, got dragged into god machine bullshit and are presently dealing with the recently surfaced, formerly thought dead changeling sibling of one of the party-members.
>>47579272
>rules lawyering that you're not under pressure
It is *better* to be under pressure than not, because that sets aside "down and dirty spellcasting," enabling you to use Yantra bonuses and spell factors. As shown in >>47578711, even with a cumulative -1 penalty for failure, a mage can still very much supercharge themselves for an entire year.
Additionally, it is worth noting that since the duration is *a whole year*, then the mage may as well take it slowly, bump up the duration on Exceptional Luck to a day, change the Reach on Augment Mind from instant action casting to Advanced Potency, and guard against dispellation that way.
With Advanced Potency, this starting mage has Withstand 5 against the dispellation of Augment Mind.
>Except that the game does run smoothly. You're grabbing the wheel of the hatchback and driving it off road and arguing that it should be paved.
"Off road" is apparently "using the rules to try to make a powerful character even under the constraints of a cumulative die penalty for acting 'under pressure.'"
>The first thing he says is pointing out that magic takes penalties for failures, which is the core to the method.
This, as established in >>47578711, does not solve much.
>>47579455
Dave, apart from the spells in the Advanced Mage Sight SoS spoiler, will there be any other new spells in SoS ?
>>47579486
It ignores no rules. You've given not a single reason as to why the ST should disallow it, and Dave has even flat out said it's legit, you disingenuous fuck.
>>47579511
Off road is attempting to break the system in a way that would never work out in the actual play of the game, yes.
>>47579525
Yes, I have. Repeatedly.
>>47579542
IT WORKS IN ACTUAL PLAY YOU STUPID FUCK. HOLY GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKING SHIT. DAVE. AGREED. IT. WORKED.
DO YOU HAVE LITERAL BRAIN DAMAGE?
>>47579356
is there a reason for the "arcana -1" wording in the spell factors section? That feels truncated. Why not say the prim. factor equals arcana dots?
>>47579569
>Excepting the penalty-for-failure thing
>>47579597
He took. That. Into. Account. You little. Braindead, illiterate cunt.
11/10 trolling, I am actually fucking angry.
>>47579511
Is having bonuses to Mental Attributes really that much of a 'supercharge'? I mean, it's not exactly godlike power to be the smartest person the room when everyone else can call down meteors or invert gravity and cause you to fall upward into a ceiling fan and become decapitated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPaXZ5ow_q8
>>47579647
Solving every problem trivially on top of gaining bonuses to your ability to call down meteors is pretty big, yeah.
>>47579575
Because base Potency is 1, not 0.
Let's talk about something completely different.
I've started to make the Whipping Boys for 2e. I've changed a lot about them, and basically just took the core concept and scrapped everything else, then started from that core. I still need to edit it and I can't think of a suitable Fifth Attainment, though. Originally 4th was 5th, and that Fourth was all about going into a shared Oneiros and using whichever of the participants in the Session's better traits, but that wasn't suitably impressive enough for a capstone (or Fourth Attainment).
Anyway, tell me what you think. Give me some suggestions. I'm probably going to have to dip into Creative Thaumaturgy and make up a Mind spell
https://tmblr.co/ZIFdmw27KSZGO
>>47579682
This could be fun though, because naturally every Mage would want this benefit. You could have an entire Legacy dedicated to performing and maintaining these bonuses on those they deem 'worthy' and then others who're developing ways to counteract / dispel it easier. Plus, those people who're making these supercharged armies would have huge targets on their heads, it'd make for a great Chronicle to be the Mages who innovate this and now have to protect it and decide whether or not to share it.
I don't want them to get rid of this, I want to play this.
>>47579733
Please stop with the stupid Whipping Boys fetish shit. If you're going to homebrew a Legacy to 2e why not something less degenerate like the Eleventh Question?
>>47579758
Because the Eleventh Question already exists.
Because I like the Whipping Boys.
Would you rather I make a Magical Girl Legacy?
>>47578711
It turns out that I have made a legitimate error in calculating the Potency of the Exceptional Luck here. I will be correcting such immediately.
>>47579486
>They do not synchronize
Which is a problem.
>the first thing Dave said was about the penalty for repeat attempts
This is already being taken into account in >>47578711.
>"Equipment bonus" does not necessarily mean an actual piece of equipment, and situations also apply.
Equipment bonuses and environmental bonuses are different, hence why some core Merits affect one but not the other. Furthermore, bonuses from spellcasting are neither. Even DaveB acknowledged that Exceptional Luck could provide bonuses beyond +5 in >>47578936.
The issue with Mana is nonexistent (both spells are under Rotes), Dispellation is not a major concern against anything but higher-powered mages (who are essentially "you, only better" anyway), and spell control (this trick takes up only two out of a Gnosis 3 mage's three spell control slots, and buffs the *entire cabal for a year*).
>>47579542
>Off road is attempting to break the system in a way that would never work out in the actual play of the game, yes.
A mage attempting to alter fate so as to make themselves better at spellcasting, then making themselves smarter and more socially capable is hardly unthinkable.
>>47579597
Again, it is already being taken into account in >>47578711.
>>47579575
(This mechanic widgit reserved for future expansion.)
>>47579682
It doesn't solve every problem.
Cause every other mage is going to have the same benefits and you're going to be working against them. Their bonuses will negate yours.
Plus the various things that will take you by surprise (i thought it was a mage but it was an ochemata, or I solved that problem but it turns out the solution is an acamoth and I am now a carrier)
>>47579758
Eleventh Question is the one legacy in the core book.
>>47579778
oook, now I'm curious xD - Can you at least say if we'll see this in the announced books (Signs and Tome) or is it too much ahead?
>>47579777
>Even DaveB acknowledged that Exceptional Luck could provide bonuses beyond +5 in >>47578936 (You).
It can, but it makes the spell cost Mana. p.126.
But you've committed yourself to casting a three hour ritual over and over until you get it right, then immediately casting another one until you get *that* right. One Mana per attempt isn't that bad.
Has Mage 2e been updated with typo fixes and indexes yet?
>>47579868
Is that to be considered errata, then? "Bonuses that go past +5 cost Mana, even if they are not actually affecting Traits or equipment bonuses"?
Okay. Let us retry >>47578711 with corrections.
A mage with Gnosis 3, Fate 2, Mind 3, a Rote for Exceptional Luck, a Rote for Augment Mind, and a relevant Rote specialty skill at 5 wants to boost four of their Mental or Social Attributes by +4.
They cast Exceptional Luck over the course of three turns. They spend a free Reach on instant action casting, a free Reach on Advanced Duration, and two free Reaches to affect casting. They take a -6 penalty on Potency, and a -2 penalty on a day-long duration. Their dice pool is Gnosis 3 + Fate 2 + Mantra 2 + Mudra 6 + Tool 1 - spell factors 8, for a dice pool of 6.
6 dice: 88.23% chance of success
5 dice: 83.19% chance of success
4 dice: 75.99% chance of success
3 dice: 65.7% chance of success
2 dice: 51% chance of success
1 die: 30% chance of success
They have a microscopic 0.055888773% chance of failing.
Once they succeed, they have a Potency 5 Exceptional Luck up, granting them a +5 bonus to their next 5 spellcasting rolls for an entire day.
They now cast Augment Mind over the course of an hour, using Mantra, Mudra, and a Tool. They spend a free Reach for Advanced Potency, a free Reach for Advanced Duration, and a free Reach to affect two separate Attributes. They take a -10 penalty on Potency, a -4 penalty for a week-long Advanced Duration, and a -2 penalty to affect two subjects. Their final dice pool is Gnosis 3 + Mind 3 + Mantra 2 + Mudra 6 + Tool 1 + Exceptional Luck 5 - spell factors 16 = 4.
4 dice: 75.99% chance of success
3 dice: 65.7% chance of success
2 dice: 51% chance of success
1 die: 30% chance of success
They have a ~2.82% chance of failing, far less if they actually spend Willpower.
Once they succeed (perhaps over the course of five hours), they grant +4 to two Mental or Social Attributes to two targets, with an Advanced Duration of a whole week.
>>47579777
You want things to conform to your ridiculous standards. This will never happen.
>>47579910
No. Look at this thread. Dave has to deal with hundreds of pages worth of THIS.
For the record, I wouldn't take that mind buff on my character.
That spell capacity is way too important to waste on a simple dicebonus longterm. Which is something everyone who has actually played 2e has probably noticed already.
Don't cast attribute enhancers with a duration of more than a scene, or a day at most. Total waste otherwise.
>>47579985
Do you honestly think that anyone cares at this point? Please give it a rest. Or take it to the OPP forums. If you honestly want these things to be fixed, then that's where they belong, not pissing into the wind to a bunch of people who really don't like the way that you do things.
>>47579985
Remember that ritual casting time for Gnosis 3 is only one hour.
In other words, for the cost of about five hours and *maybe* a Willpower point or two (absolutely no Mana is being spent here), a mage can grant themselves and a buddy a +4 bonus to two Mental or Social Attributes for a whole week, with Withstand 5 against dispellation.
They can then repeat the same process for another two Mental or Social Attributes, since the spell stacking rules do not actually prevent this. They are left with one free spell control slot, but hey, at least they have maxed-out Mental and Social Attributes.
>>47580014
Would you like for me to attempt the same example with a different spell, then?
>>47580029
>OPP forums
>threads for criticism have been closed down
kek
>>47580038
I got it. New rule to errata in; no spell can be recast after failure until you've had 8 hours rest. In fact, how about we get rid of Creative Thaumaturgy altogether and make it so all Mages have a set number of rotes they can memorize per day and then forget immediately after they're cast and have to be recommitted to memory over an extended rest period.
Now -there- is a perfect system.
>>47580052
Make a new one.
>>47580038
You know what, I hate myself. Why don't you look over my Whipping Boy Legacy and tell me what you think, and how I can improve it. I'm sure they could use some M1 Garands.
>>47580094
>no spell can be recast after failure until you've had 8 hours rest. In fact, how about we get rid of Creative Thaumaturgy altogether and make it so all Mages have a set number of rotes they can memorize per day and then forget immediately after they're cast and have to be recommitted to memory over an extended rest period.
That sounds horrible and shit, no-one would use something like that.
>>47580094
>>47580038
>>47580094
Let us attempt this under a new example, this time with only Gnosis 3 and Fate 2. (Not even Fate 3, just Fate 2).
A mage with Gnosis 3, Fate 2, a Rote for Quantum Flux, a Rote for Exceptional Luck, and a relevant Rote specialty skill at 5 wants to be *really* lucky at doing things.
They cast Exceptional Luck over the course of three turns. They spend a free Reach on instant action casting, a free Reach on Advanced Duration, and two free Reaches to affect casting. They take a -6 penalty on Potency, and a -2 penalty on a day-long duration. Their dice pool is Gnosis 3 + Fate 2 + Mantra 2 + Mudra 6 + Tool 1 - spell factors 8, for a dice pool of 6.
Over the course of six rolls, they have a 0.055888773% chance of failing.
Once they succeed, they have a Potency 5 Exceptional Luck up, granting them a +5 bonus to their next 5 spellcasting rolls for an entire day.
They now cast Quantum Flux (primary factor is Duration) over the course of three turns. They spend a free Reach for instant action casting, a free Reach for sensory range, a free Reach for Advanced Potency, a free Reach for Advanced Duration, and and a free Reach for Advanced Scale. They take a -8 penalty on Potency. Their final dice pool is Gnosis 3 + Fate 2 + Mantra 2 + Mudra 6 + Tool 1 + Exceptional Luck 5 - spell factors 8 = 11 dice, more than enough to guarantee a success.
Once they succeed (perhaps in just a few turns), they grant up to five targets (including themselves) the ability to ignore -5 in penalties to their next five actions. Furthermore, even if that effect runs out, they can still take a turn to aim (and lose Defense, unfortunately) and gain a whopping +5 bonus to their next mundane instant action. Remember, this affects the entire cabal and has Advanced Potency to help Withstand dispellation.
Since it is so trivial and rapid to cast this chain of Exceptional Luck and Quantum Flux, a mage could do so each scene at their leisure. This does not even cost Mana or Willpower.
>>47580094
>Well why don't you just go play D&D?
I can't believe someone tried to pull this out in 2016.
>>47580223
What if I just don't optimize my character to exploit boring cheese and enjoy the game?
>>47580137That's D&D
>>47580269
That sounds unbelievable, why would anyone ever do that?
>>47580233
Why not? You seem like you'd enjoy that better. You get to keep caster supremacy while also being shackled to a system that tries its hardest to make even its most powerful character class be as milquetoast and lame as possible.
>>47580223
I feel like you'd argue with the ST if this got dispelled.
>>47580293
I think I'm starting to understand why Ads doesn't like D&D anymore--aside from breaking it open like an egg under an anvil--but likes rules lite systems like Powered by the Apocalypse.
There's less moving parts, so he can't go all robot on it, and because there's no roboting, he can enjoy it. He's not tempted to break it because there's nothing to break.
>>47580269
Then why would you have any sort of problem with the rules being fixed?
>>47580291>That's D&D
That's the joke.
>>47580223
There is a piss easy way to fix this. Just make spending Merits to raise Gnosis allowable only with ST permission, just like it used to be with all powerstat increases at chargen.
>>47580318
>I feel like you'd argue with the ST if this got dispelled
You've just wasted the enemy turn on something you can cast again without any issue, and now you can hit them with meteors or whatever. Is that a pretty good thing?
Why the fuck has this been going on for two days?
>>47580319
Why do they need to be fixed when there's nothing here that doesn't work, it just allows characters to optimize their character to provide a very specific benefit to themselves and their cabalmates. I don't see a problem with it as written, but if an ST did it's as simple as just saying 'no' because they don't like it. I certainly don't see a reason to harass the developer by reposting the same thought experiment over and over when you could just either a.) post solutions you think he should consider to fix it, or b.) post it once and then talk about something else until he gets back with a response or the final game actually comes out.
>>47579356
Can I just say, DaveB, how much I appreciate that generally Mage 2E has a very permissive attitude towards stuff you can do?
Like off the top of my head I can remember at least two instances of the book addressing something that'd usually be discouraged in other books and instead saying, "Yeah, you CAN do that. Go nuts.". We have time travel rules for God's sake.
It shows a lot of faith in your audience and in the magic system that you don't feel the need to work in a lot of "Yeah no you can't do the cool thing its game-breaking." caveats.
I'm gonna live in the abyss because the supernal and fallen world are hella gay, you can keep your faggy watchtowers and orders I'm gonna embrace the stillness of eternity.
>>47580371
It's too big to be stopped
>>47580434
Scelesti, plz.
>>47580269
The fact that you can ignore a system's breaking points does not stop those breaking points from existing.
>>47580318
>I feel like you'd argue with the ST if this got dispelled.
"Awakened magic must defeat Awakened magic" is a comfortable paradigm to be in if you happen to be the Awakened here, since it practically forces the opposition to be a similarly powerful and optimized mage who can take down your Advanced Potency spells which have a moderate benefit against dispellation.
Preferring PbtA games (aside from Dungeon World, an awful example of a PbtA system) is a matter of leaning towards systems whose mechanics are actually *good* out of the box.
>>47580319
This is correct. The rules of Mage 2e could use several fixes.
>>47580339
This only delays the issue rather than solving it.
>>47580384
>a.) post solutions you think he should consider to fix it
It is not my job to fix the game.
>post it once and then talk about something else
I am posting it numerous times because new "rulings" keep coming in from DaveB (and sometimes, I make legitimate errors in calculating things), thereby forcing me to revise my example to show that, yes, 0 XP mages can still achieve incredible feats.
>>47580515
>Powered by the Apocalypse
>good
>at all
Oh okay, I can just go ahead and disregard your posts. Thanks for clearing that up. I mean, the resolution system alone is dogshit from the get go so you've already failed at giving anyone a system worth playing out of the box.
>>47580572
The default Powered by the Apocalypse certainly has rough edges, and Dungeon World is a rickety mockery of the PbtA mechanics, but later PbtA games such as Worlds in Peril (superheroes), Urban Shadows (dark urban fantasy), and Fellowship (fantasy heroes saving the world from an overlord) are all very well-crafted.
I would not go so far as to say that they are *perfect*, but their core resolution mechanic alone is certainly leagues above that of Chronicles of Darkness.
>>47580293
You seem to have me confused with 2hu. What I mean is, "Why don't you just go play D&D" is a weak-ass come back, especially from a White Wolf fan in 2016.
>>47580515
>yes, 0 XP mages can still achieve incredible feats.
that's the point of the game, tho
what you keep calling breaking points are just mages being mages
>>47580652
no one's a white wolf fan in 2016, white wolf doesn't make anything except online slot machines
>>47580572
It's a simple bell-curve with a basic "normal success", "success with difficulty" and "failure" result spread. That's hardly dogshit compared to nonsense like Cthulhutech.
>>47580651
From Monsterhearts:
>When you make a move to turn someone on (with a character action or with scene description), the other player doesn’t get to exclaim, “Wait, my character is straight! There’s no way that’d turn them on.” That’s a decision that we as players can’t make for our characters. The dice are going to be the ultimate referees of what is and isn’t sexy for these characters.
If you think -that- is better than CofD then you're not just wrong, you're a creep. That's disgusting and I'm happy that I can say that CofD would -never- promote that kind of cringy, rape-apologist behavior.
>>47580679
WoD/CofD fan, same difference. Either way it's a very poor comeback.
>>47580700
Except there are no modifiers or factors other than completely arbitrary whims of MC. So, for instance, my character wanted to sneak down a hallway. I have the same pool whether I do it in ninja gear and moving an inch at a time that I do if I'm wearing jingle bells and have a strobe light taped to my forehead.
>>47580702
>That's disgusting and I'm happy that I can say that CofD would -never- promote that kind of cringy, rape-apologist behavior.
Beast: The Primordial says hello, but I'm pretty sure that's the punchline you were going for. Sorry about explaining your joke.
>>47580515
Powered by the Apocalypse games are only good if you're going for a rules light system. It's not difficult to be "good out of the box" when you have four moving parts.
Also, this is not an issue with the actual game itself. This situation will never come up. It doesn't need to be fixed when there are other, more meaningful things that should be fixed. Most of Dave's new rulings--not in quotation marks--are actually clarifications of things that are already in the book, or explaining things to you that you don't grasp.
The rules of Mage 2e could use several fixes. A lot of spells are not in the right Practice, or are at a different level of usefulness compared to similar spells from other Arcana (the fact that Spirit can protect against ALL spirit type effects, while it takes a separate Reach for Mind to do the same against anything other than Goetia). There are numerous typos.
This is not an actual problem with the rules because it is incredibly prohibitive and any ST will prevent it, either through houserule, punishing the player, or more reasonably simply asking that they stop trying to abuse the system.
>>47580700
I love that other people hate CthulhuTech as much as I do.
>>47580702
Calling that rape is silly and childish, and requires you to ignore the part you quoted. It's like calling it rape when you take damage. It's a storygame where the story is determined by random dice rolls. The story dictates your character's sexuality, and the story dictates what they find attractive. No one is being made to have sex against their will.
>>47580749
as bad as it is Beast doesn't do that
>>47580736
"No modifiers other than completely arbitrary whims of the MC" is not the same as "no modifiers period".
>>47580736
>So, for instance, my character wanted to sneak down a hallway. I have the same pool whether I do it in ninja gear and moving an inch at a time that I do if I'm wearing jingle bells and have a strobe light taped to my forehead.
That's what tags, forwards, and ongoings are for. Your stats also serve as modifiers. This is why it's really important to design good moves with interesting choices, because the system is intended for you to get 7-9 as your most common roll.
The system as is supposed to simulate the kind of drama you'd see in long form television shows, where the stakes are more broader questions than "do you ninja in". It's a bit like Drama System and Cortex Plus in that aspect.
>>47580808
But it is rape, anon!
I, the player, don't like it, so it is rape!.
>>47580808
>It's a storygame where the story is determined by random dice rolls. The story dictates your character's sexuality, and the story dictates what they find attractive.
"Hey baby, you can't say no. The dice have already decided."
>No one is being made to have sex against their will.
No. That's what the equally cringy Sex Moves from Apocalypse World are for.
>>47580515
>The fact that you can ignore a system's breaking points does not stop those breaking points from existing.
>That a min-maxed character can do things that no normal person can do but a normal person can't doesn't mean a min-maxed character shouldn't be able to do them
Would Fate/ Stay Night Hetoic Spirits come from the Shadow or the Temenos? Whats the differebce between the Spirit of King Arthur and the concelt of King Arthur.
Also what kind of spell would allow you to be proficient in an item based on its experience. Sword used by a kegendary swordsman allows you to wield as if you had their skill or maybe an instrument.
>>47579356
Thanks Dave. Ignore the retards. You are the best WoD/CofD dev and we really appreciate what are you doing.
Also feel free to post Deviant spoilers.
>>47580702
>>47580808
>>47580889
You guys are missing the point of the Turn On move, or whatever it was called
You roll to give them a boner. How they act after that is entirely the player's decision
It's entirely meant to model the fact that, during puberty, you can get a boner from literally anything.
It doesn't mean you have to instantly engage in sex, just like getting a boner in real life doesn't mean you're going to have sex. It just means whatever happened scratched an itch somewhere, and your pubescent body liked it.
New to the system, any traps to look out for as a newbie when making a new character?
>>47581027
what game?
>>47580889
>No. That's what the equally cringy Sex Moves from Apocalypse World are for.
That's not how they work. They always trigger after sex, and focus on the consequences of the characters doing so. Apocalypse World in particular is trying to simulate a TV show with the kind of tone of an HBO original, and that includes the fade to black sex scenes and what happens afterward that almost all of them have. The Special Move of the Battlebabe is straight up "the other Move doesn't happen".
Have you ever actually read any of these books, or are you just working off of some kind of moral panic?
>>47580875
>>47580875
>I, the player, don't like it, so it is rape!.
Then don't play the game where your character's sexual choices are determined by dice rolls.
>>47580923
I can't remember whether Fate/Stay Night heroes are the ACTUAL people reincarnated or reembodied into their legend, or if they're the legend left behind with the memories of the original. I think that for your purposes, you might want to go with Temenos, though. There wouldn't really be a Spirit of King Arthur. If there were a Spirit of Arthurian Legend, I suppose it would have to represent all of the legend. The Concept of Arthur that would exist in the Temenos (I believe that would constitute a Goetia) is the metaphysical beliefs and feelings that the world has towards the notion of King Arthur.
Both of these are separate from King Arthur the person and historical figure that was fictionalized by Mallory and others.
>>47580993
Like I said, it's a storygame and the dice decide what happens. The players then decide how they react to that.
>>47581048
Is it possible to play a virginal or at least a monogamous person in those games
>>47581027
Which setting and which edition?
>>47581048
>have to play a battlebabe if you don't want to get raped
>>47581045
The base rulebook for now. I think our GM plans to run an introduction with us as normies to then turn us into mages.
>>47581085
Yes? Why would you think otherwise?
>>47581094
Just keep in mind that action = progress. If you sit around doing nothing but whatever the others tell you to you're not going to contribute to the game as much. It might not matter if they have group exp (which is the superior way to go) but even then the more people doing things the better for everyone.
>>47580572
>>47580651
>>47580702
>>47580700
>>47580736
>>47580808
>>47580827
>>47580875
>>47580889
>>47580993
>>47581048
>>47581056
>>47581085
Ok guys, please take the ***world talk to the thread that's about Dungeon World.
>>47568347
>>47580702
Every PbtA game has its niche. Worlds in Peril is for generic caped superheroes cleaving to generic caped superhero clichés. Urban Shadows is essentially a clone of World of Darkness, albeit slanted more towards "avoiding/embracing personal corruption" and "trading favors with the factions of the city." Fellowship is for generic fantasy stories wherein a band of friends save the world from an evil overlord.
Monsterhearts is for playing out the stories of bratty, immature, manipulative, sexuality-confused, sexually-curious, emotionally-unstable, monstrous (in more ways than one) adolescents. In that regard, it does an admirable job.
>>47580808
>This situation will never come up.
That does not stop the rules themselves from being a problem.
>Most of Dave's new rulings--not in quotation marks--are actually clarifications of things that are already in the book, or explaining things to you that you don't grasp.
They should be in the book (or the errata) if they are this important.
>A lot of spells are not in the right Practice, or are at a different level of usefulness compared to similar spells from other Arcana
This is a problem I have already gone into in previous threads, using Fate 4's Chaos Mastery vs. Forces 4's Thunderbolt as a strong example.
>>47580911
The fact that the system can be trivially min-maxed this way is an issue. Yes, yes, all systems can be min-maxed, but the rift between "not particularly optimized" and "heavily optimized" is much larger in some systems than others, and that rift should be minimized.
>>47581027
Spreading out your skills such that you have at least one dot in any skill you plan on using is *critical*, because Chronicles of Darkness will screw you over with untrained penalties (especially penalties for Mental skills, which are a brutal -3).
Always remember Conditions. You are entitled to one whenever you roll an exceptional success. These can *also* earn you a Beat once per scene simply for resolving them.
>>47581085
If you don't want to ever use your Special, sure. The Child-Thing has no sex move.
>>47581093
No, you play the Battlebabe to choose whether or not the person you sleep with (or you) gets to benefit from their special. So the Battlebabe can sleep with the Hardholder and get 1-Barter, but sleep with the psychic weirdo who's name I forget and not have her emotions read.
Or if for some reason you like invasive psychic weirdos but not free money, the other way around.
The battlebabe's special is literally "sex is just sex for you". The game focuses on interconnected relationships and the incestuous jealousy that comes from them. If you make it creepy, that's on you and your inability to deal with sex in a game.
>>47581094
Which base rulebook? You're obviously playing nWoD, but does the cover say World of Darkness or Chronicles of Darkness?
>>47581156
>The battlebabe's special is literally "sex is just sex for you".
so you still get raped, you just don't turn gay because of it
>>47581027
This isn't 3.pf D&D, you can't make a thematic character that fails at the theme by rote.
First thing I can tell you as a ST is to make a person, think aabout what they do, how they grew up, family, friends, loved ones, things like that.
>>47581093
No
If you don't want your character to have sex, say "I don't want to have sex"
Then it's up to the ST if he's gonna let the other player try and force it or not. The rules say nothing either way.
Sex Moves are literally only AFTER sex.
EG iirc the Witch-playbook gets 2 strings(+1 bonus usable once, at the player's discretion, on a roll against that character) on the other person as a Sex Move. Likely meant to represent the stereotype of a witch having sex with a man in order to, in Mage terms, get a Sympathetic Yantra(hair, sweat, blood, other things) from him.
Playing a Battle Babe means you can have sex with the Witch without her gaining any strings on you.
>>47581156
Chronicles of Darkness.
>>47581151
>That does not stop the rules themselves from being a problem.
If it never comes up it is by definition not a problem. I also just said that many of your complaints are in the book, you just choose to ignore them.
Chaos Mastery and Thunderbolt are not in the wrong Practices. Chaos Mastery is a Patterning spell because it manipulates the nature of complex patterns.
>>47581170
Playing the game was giving consent. You can renege your consent at any time by quitting the game.
>>47581179
>>When you make a move to turn someone on (with a character action or with scene description), the other player doesn’t get to exclaim, “Wait, my character is straight! There’s no way that’d turn them on.” That’s a decision that we as players can’t make for our characters. The dice are going to be the ultimate referees of what is and isn’t sexy for these characters.
>>47581232
>Implying you slept with everyone who turned you on as a teen
>>47581232
>John shits in a glass and hands it to you
>staring at the steaming brown mess in a glass you can't help but find yourself irresistibly aroused at the boy with his my little pony underwear around his ankles
>>47581177
>This isn't 3.pf D&D, you can't make a thematic character that fails at the theme by rote.
Oh, yes, you most certainly can. For instance, if you would like to play a vampire on Dominate, but you have failed to invest in Intelligence and Expression ("My character is not exactly a musician or a speech-writer, so I have focused on Social Attributes and Social Skills instead. That should make them good at Dominate, right?"), then you will be screwed out of a good pool for Mesmerize, the key ability of Dominate.
Chronicles of Darkness is *very* demanding when it comes to specific, highly arbitrary dice pools for supernatural powers.
>>47581219
>Chaos Mastery and Thunderbolt are not in the wrong Practices. Chaos Mastery is a Patterning spell because it manipulates the nature of complex patterns.
Then why does Chaos Mastery deserve to be vastly superior to Thunderbolt in terms of raw power, flexibility, and covert-ness?
>>47581255
Well, I atleast tried.
>>47581179
Battlebabe and Witch are from two different games. Pretty sure you know that but I just wanted to clarify for everybody else.
>>47581185
You're in good luck. A lot of the newbie traps of the last edition have been mostly wiped away. One big tip you might need is that you should take at least a dot in Athletics to help bolster your Defense.
>>47581341
Is there a rule that says I need to maximize my dice pools or should I be constructing them based on what I feel like the character's aptitudes would be?
>>47581341
>but you have failed to invest in Intelligence and Expression ("My character is not exactly a musician or a speech-writer, so I have focused on Social Attributes and Social Skills instead.
expression is a social skill
but that's more not understanding what dominate is, a st (or good fellow player) would point him towards majesty, which makes more sense
Holy shit these last threads
Planning to get all 3 Adamant hand merits for a brawler. Would that be useful
>>47581390
Yeah, it has really gone to shit. Hopefully after the FAQ/Errata for Mage is released things might settle down a bit.
>>47581315
This is the Monsterhearts equivalent of the 2hu Mage derail. Mercifully, it's far shorter.
>>47581341
There is a difference between being skilled at something, and the game wholesale lying to you.
You seem to think that possibility of failure is the worst thing that can happen. You don't NEED to minmax dominate unless you decide to try and abuse it on shit that is above your pay grade.
>>47581390
>>47581423
This is nothing compared to when GMC first came out and 2hu started taking apart the combat. That lasted for weeks. In separate, dedicated threads, even.
>>47581373
>>47581375
Your concept can and will dictate what sort of powers your character will actually be good at.
Remember that you assign Skills *before* applying a template, so if you have decided that your character will have merely average Intelligence (2) and no special training in the creative arts (Expression), then it is quite possible that you have locked yourself out of a good pool for Mesmerize.
Even if you happen to be a Ventrue and place your +1 Attribute into Intelligence, you are still looking at Intelligence 3 - 1 untrained penalty + Blood Potency for your Mesmerize, which makes for a shabby start.
>>47581464
>my character specialized in katanas, how come by RAW he's losing against a man with a gun!?
they were at least more amusing
i don't really give a shit about mage
>>47581464
Jesus fucking Christ. I actually enjoy mechanical discussions, but I think has just gone too far.
>>47581479
>Remember that you assign Skills *before* applying a template,
and remember you're not playing with a computer so you can go back and change your character if they don't fit
or you can look at the powers before you even decide on your attributes to see what they need?
>>47581417
I'd stop at two, personally.
There are many other wonderful merits to go for.
>>47581341
It is not demanding at all, and many of the dice pools aren't arbitrary. It's also very difficult to be bad at something when you're flat out told what the dice pool for it is. "Oh, I want to be good at Dominate, it tells me what I need for that, so I'll take these skills". You also rarely need a large dice pool, and even someone with moderate pools can succeed due to the way the aggressor is favoured.
>>47581373
No. The system doesn't really require you to have more than a dice pool of 4 or 5 for anything not contested anyway.
>>47581479
You realize that you're allowed to know what you're building, right? Like, the game doesn't expect you to go in completely not knowing what vampires are or what your powers will be. That's honestly an incredibly ridiculous thing to say even for you.
>>47581493
I don't remember that. I thought he'd gotten chased out by then. Maybe I wasn't around for it?
Heck, I thought he was banned and trying to pretend he was someone different and using catboy or mermaid shota art.
>>47581464
>2hu started taking apart the combat.
What happened? Is something wrong with the combat?
>>47581492
Chronicles of Darkness buys into the "firearms are absolutely, positively lethal more so than any other personal weapon in the world" myth, to the point wherein a gun-toting character well within the reach of a trained kukri-wielder can simply back up and shoot. In other situations, it is virtually impossible for someone to ignore a shot from a trained gunman unless they are dedicated to hiding behind complete and total cover (not just heavy concealment from a large obstruction, but complete and total cover).
>>47581598
A man with a sword is likely to lose against someone with a gun, even if they're just a thug and the swordsman is Musashi.
Guns kill people pretty easily.
Gunfights between people who can't aim for shit are slogfests.
If you don't have fighting styles or vary your technique in combat, you're not going to be a good fighter.
Hurt Locker is adding in some of the more fanciful shit, like cinematic swordsmen who can take out rooms full of gunmen.
>>47581638
This sounds awfully realistic, but I can see how this may not be fun.
>>47581600
>Chronicles of Darkness buys into the "firearms are absolutely, positively lethal more so than any other personal weapon in the world" myth, to the point wherein a gun-toting character well within the reach of a trained kukri-wielder can simply back up and shoot.
Untrue as it is now as it was then.
But the big thing is that the core book didn't have a lot of extra shit for trained kukri-wielders, because that's far more niche than "man with gun". So Hurt Locker is giving your snowflakes some beefing up.
> In other situations, it is virtually impossible for someone to ignore a shot from a trained gunman unless they are dedicated to hiding behind complete and total cover (not just heavy concealment from a large obstruction, but complete and total cover).
Yes, just like in real life, you can't avoid a shot you don't know is coming.
>>47581573
You should know as well as I do that no one ever gets "chased out" of an anonymous image board like /tg/. But it did happen, I remember the threads. It was certainly an experience.
>>47581600
If you consider having no special merits "trained", sure. If they have one dot of Close Quarters Combat, not so much. I get the impression that you also ignored things like spending Willpower or going All Out.
Then again, you were the one who made me realize just how worthless Defense was in 1e, so at least there's that.
Also, being in close combat with the gunman means that their gun has to contend with your Defense.
>>47581764
>I get the impression that you also ignored things like spending Willpower or going All Out.
Indeed.
>>47581755
Some do. They're just forgotten about. Unfortunately many who are come back.
Why do you think you hadn't heard from Adslahnit in ages?
Although he probably was permabanned and unable to get back on until now. Maybe if we report him the moderators will do something. Then again, there's no comment box to explain "this person was permabanned".
>>47581638
>>47581598
Another, similar complaint I commonly see is that two characters with very similar builds will have extremely long, slogging fights. This complaint came around again when Werewolf 2e come out, since Garou form on Garou form fights will almost certainly end in a stalemate unless the other members of the pack act. This design choice was intentional, though a little hard to pick up on right away.
>>47581638
>>47581672
Let us illustrate precisely how good firearms are in this system.
Chronicles of Darkness p120 gives us statistics for a generic, "hard-nosed beat cop." This officer has 5 dice to use their baton, 6 dice to grapple, and 7 dice to shoot a firearm. The beat cop also has Defense 6.
If two police offers get into a fight with each other, their dice pool for trying to whack each other with a baton is -1 (defaults to a chance die), and their dice pool for trying to grab each other is 0 (defaults to a chance die). According to page 87, even if they are minor named characters, they still have only 1 Willpower to spend during the combat.
Suppose one of them was to start off crouched behind a car instead. According to page 90, they are substantially concealed (-3 penalty to hit them with ranged attacks), but they also take a -2 penalty to their own ranged attack rolls.
The cop out in the open can, as an instant action, fire a snap shot at 4 dice that has a ~76% chance of hitting their target, dealing 1 success + weapon rating - armor. If the cop in the open spends Willpower, that goes up to 7 dice, which will probably score 2 successes + weapon rating - armor.
Why is melee a whiff-fest while firing guns essentially point-and-click even against substantial, hard concealment?
>>47581793
Except he's been posting on the regular for months. He was a regular figure in the Strike! Threads, for example. Permabans don't mean shit on this website, not in an age where everyone's got a Dynamic IP or access to a VPN.
What kind of weapons still use brawl?
>>47581764
>If you consider having no special merits "trained", sure. If they have one dot of Close Quarters Combat, not so much.
Firing Lines takes an entire action to use. If the gun-wielder forces the other person to use their actions just to take cover, then that is effectively a stunlock.
>I get the impression that you also ignored things like spending Willpower or going All Out.
Willpower is also available to the firearm-wielder. All-out attacks also add only a +2 bonus (and, as insult to injury, remove Defense), whereas a generic beat cop has Defense 6.
>>47581841
Brass Knuckles
That's about itMaybe Fighting Style-specific weapons, but I dunno
>>47581573
>It's also very difficult to be bad at something when you're flat out told what the dice pool for it is. "Oh, I want to be good at Dominate, it tells me what I need for that, so I'll take these skills".
That is effectively the game forcing your concept for you. All games do this to an extent, but the ones I consider "good" do so only to a minimal degree, and some even do away with the "In order to be good with X ability, you will have to invest in Y arbitrary statistic because we tell you so" gimmick entirely.
>The system doesn't really require you to have more than a dice pool of 4 or 5 for anything not contested anyway.
Abilities such as Dominate *are* contested.
>You realize that you're allowed to know what you're building, right? Like, the game doesn't expect you to go in completely not knowing what vampires are or what your powers will be.
Following the game's character creation process the "organic" way can lead to a newbie-trapped character, and that is not very good.
>>47581764
>Also, being in close combat with the gunman means that their gun has to contend with your Defense.
There is absolutely nothing stopping the gunman from simply backing away and shooting.
Willpower is a highly limited resource for NPCs. Some receive none at all in combat, while minor named characters have only 1 Willpower.
>>47581805
>Why is melee a whiff-fest while firing guns essentially point-and-click even against substantial, hard concealment?
Considering the gun battle you just listed, with those same cops, will last forever because kevlar turns firearms into stun damage, and they have 2-3 armor soak on success+2 pistols.... yeah.
>>47581849
If you want a game where going head to head against gun users is perfectly fine, then D20 Modern is what you want. I don't mind a group of gun wielders requiring finesse to take on safely.
>>47581916
>Following the game's character creation process the "organic" way can lead to a newbie-trapped character, and that is not very good.
Because characters can't learn and grow from experience, they must be good, off the bat, or they are forever shit.
>>47581916
>There is absolutely nothing stopping the gunman from simply backing away and shooting.
Wouldn't they have at least one free swipe at the gunman, though? I'm pretty sure backing away and taking a shot is going to be two Instants, unless I missed something.
>>47581799
>This complaint came around again when Werewolf 2e come out, since Garou form on Garou form fights will almost certainly end in a stalemate unless the other members of the pack act.
Not really, you can just use a silver weapon or bite to do damage. There's gifts that can up your damage tremendously too.
>>47581961
>Considering the gun battle you just listed, with those same cops, will last forever because kevlar turns firearms into stun damage, and they have 2-3 armor soak on success+2 pistols.... yeah.
This is not how ballistic armor works in Chronicles of Darkness.
"• Ballistic armor applies to incoming firearms attacks. Each point of ballistic armor downgrades one point of damage from lethal to bashing.
"General armor applies to all attacks. Each point of general armor reduces the total damage taken by one point, starting with the most severe type of damage."
A kevlar vest has general armor 1 and ballistic armor 3.
If a beat cop has a heavy pistol (weapon rating 2), spends their one point of Willpower, takes a shot at the other cop crouching behind a car (6 dice for the attack), and scores two successes, then the other cop has just taken 3 bashing damage. That is a non-negligible amount.
>>47581805
>>47581849
>Why is melee a whiff-fest while firing guns essentially point-and-click even against substantial, hard concealment?
>5 dice to use their baton, 6 dice to grapple, and 7 dice to shoot a firearm. The beat cop also has Defense 6
>Str 3, Weaponry 2
>Brawl 3
>Dex 3, Firearms 3, Specialty in Firearms
>Wits 3, Athletics 3
Well, for one, it's because most people aren't that good at fighting. You have all 11 of this cop's primary skill dots in combat-specific physical skills. He sucks at driving, tracking, hiding, and larceny-ing, and is the definition of min-maxed for combat situations.
No random beat cop is going to be statted like that; the example antagonists in the book aren't mooks, they're Antagonists, and in a situation where you're fighting an Antagonist, it makes sense that you're gonna have a hard time killing them.
Second of all, it's because even in real life, you can kill someone from 10 feet away with a pistol a lot easier than you can 1 foot away with a knife.
>>47582015
This is a generic police officer from page 120 of the core Chronicles of Darkness rulebook. I am not the one statting out this character; White Wolf/Onyx Path is.
>>47581805
>If two police offers get into a fight with each other, their dice pool for trying to whack each other with a baton is -1 (defaults to a chance die), and their dice pool for trying to grab each other is 0 (defaults to a chance die).
One should probably disarm the other.
Plus when you grapple you can bring to the ground, and people on the ground have a penalty to their Defense against melee weapons.
>Why is melee a whiff-fest while firing guns essentially point-and-click even against substantial, hard concealment?
Because you have two characters who are hiding and taking snap shots against each other. Even in real life this results in many misses and non-lethal damage.
>>47581849
>Firing Lines takes an entire action to use. If the gun-wielder forces the other person to use their actions just to take cover, then that is effectively a stunlock.
You've been told this before, a character can go prone reflexively, giving shooters a penalty against them.
>Willpower is also available to the firearm-wielder. All-out attacks also add only a +2 bonus (and, as insult to injury, remove Defense), whereas a generic beat cop has Defense 6.
He's also only got 1 Willpower, while the PC has much more to spend, as well as Merits and other abilities.
>>47581916
>That is effectively the game forcing your concept for you.
It's forcing your concept the same way being told you can't be a daywalking glittery Twilight vampire who drinks vegetable juice is.
>There is absolutely nothing stopping the gunman from simply backing away and shooting.
If you make a called shot to their arm or hand you can make them drop their gun. If you disarm them they drop their gun. If you knock them down they have penalties and cannot back off as easy.
You've been told all this before and you choose to ignore it in favor of an NPC vs NPC white room situation where you limit their options to 1.
>>47582015
Oh, wait, I looked up the actual statblock for the hard-nosed beat cop.
He has Dexterity 4, which means no Specialty in Firearms.
He's definitely not an average cop. He's the best shot in his precinct, probably.
>>47581984
Those are absolutely true, it's just that on an initial glance, the insanely fast healing rate of Garou makes it look like a direct one on one fight between the two forms is near impossible to accomplish. Just for the record, I don't really have a problem with Garou's healing rate myself.
>>47582049
Yeah, I realized that, hence why I said
> the example antagonists in the book aren't mooks, they're Antagonists, and in a situation where you're fighting an Antagonist, it makes sense that you're gonna have a hard time killing them.
>>47582009
3 bashing damage is entirely negligible.
>>47578117
>Guy Davis in the OP
Fuck year
>>47582009
A glock, which is standard equipment for most police forces (including the cop in the book), is a light pistol.
A heavy pistol would be a .45, so at least present things honestly.
In your example, the cop just blew his 1 willpower point to hit for 3 bashing out of 7-8 track, and the other can do the same. it turns into a stalemate, but from from a point and click situation.
>>47582092
>In your example, the cop just blew his 1 willpower point to hit for 3 bashing out of 7-8 track, and the other can do the same. it turns into a stalemate, but from from a point and click situation.
Or the other police officer can charge them and grapple them, using their willpower to dominate.
I thought it couldn't be possible for me to dislike Mage any further
>>47582015
>>47582049
Alternatively, let us have a look at the combat statistics of a "cocky mob hitman" from page 119 instead.
They have 6 dice for knockout blows, 7 dice for concealed blades, and 8 dice for guns. They have Defense 7.
If two of them get into melee combat with each other, they stalemate each other into chance die rolls, unless they spend their (possibly nonexistent, or limited to only one) Willpower. Alternatively, they could bring out their guns, which have a disturbingly high chance of hitting someone who is hiding behind substantial concealment (and that hiding person still takes a -2 penalty to their *own* ranged attack rolls).
>>47582081
For a mortal? No, it is not.
>>47581799
This is one thing I will say that WoD lacks. It really needs to explain some of it's less obvious design choices, instead of assuming the reader will pick up on it.
>>47581984
I'd say that requiring you to pull out the big guns is "stalemate" territory. Which is intentional, of course. There's even a bit about it in the ST section that talks about how cannibalism can look *pretty good*.
>>47581805
Melee is only a whiff fest if you don't understand how the system works and what it wants you to do.
>>47581828
Why's he back to these threads, then?
Also, yeah, but he gets all nervous and scared when he gets permabanned, up until the next time he starts posting.
>>47581886
>>47581841
Brass knuckles and shivs.
>>47581849
>Firing Lines takes an entire action to use.
And now you're within striking range of the person with the gun, and can use your gurkha training to cut their arm off. Unless of course you want to argue that they can step back, in which case we're now in a featureless white room and nothing matters, so of course the person with the gun will win.
I will agree with you that unless you're able to deal a decisive blow, All Out Attacks don't mean much anymore. Personally I've houseruled it where they only remove Skill-to-Defense.
>>47581916
It's not forcing your concept any more than you're forced to take Athletics if you want to be a traceur.
>Dominate is contested
Yes, and as I said above that statement, the aggressor is favoured.
Intelligence+Expression+Dominate all at two still puts you at an advantage over the average character's contested roll.
Character creation only "traps" you if for some reason you didn't at all read over the options available to you first. Literally no one does this. As someone else pointed out, you're also able to go back and change things, nothing is set in stone. When people talk about "trap options", they mean things that look like they should be good but aren't, like the Toughness Feat.
>>47582119
>For a mortal? No, it is not.
It heals in 45 minutes and it's not even half the cop's health. It's negligible.
If you believe it's non-negligible, then why is the other cop still sitting there firing instead of running away?
>>47582119
That's still unreasonably statted for mook-dom. All of the ones in the core book are.
You're literally taking people who are expert marksmen and merely above-average fighters and asking why they're able to hit each other better with guns than they are with their fists.
>>47581841
Bagh Naka.
>>47581961
Firearms are *exaggeratedly* lethal in Chronicles of Darkness, since they blow straight past Defense (lower of Wits and Dexterity, and then with Athletics added to it) and are very likely to hit even someone hiding behind substantial concealment.
>Because characters can't learn and grow from experience, they must be good, off the bat, or they are forever shit.
The Ventrue whose concept just so happened to include "My character is a musician and/or a speech-writer" gets to make far better use of Mesmerize, right out of the gate, because...?
>>47581967
There are no opportunity attacks in Chronicles of Darkness.
>>47581967
You get a free movement.
>>47582170
>The Ventrue whose concept just so happened to include "My character is a musician and/or a speech-writer" gets to make far better use of Mesmerize, right out of the gate, because...?
Because he's a practiced speaker, and he knows how to convince people to do what he wants them to.
>>47582157
>That's still unreasonably statted for mook-dom. All of the ones in the core book are.
They aren't mooks. They are supposed to be significant non-supernatural challenges for mortal characters.
>Not every encounter the player characters have throws them into the deep end of the dangerously supernatural. The Storyteller can use the traits given in this section to represent any number of non-supernatural enemy types that the player characters might run into, whether they decide to fight, talk, or just to follow these people around to see what trouble they’re up to.
>Not every foe has hellish powers and an otherworldly agenda. Sometimes, the obstacle that stands between you and your goals is just a person like you, doing his job, standing up for what he believes in, or taking the gullible for everything they’re worth. This section presents traits for non-supernatural opponents that the Storyteller can use to populate her world and pit against the player characters in a variety of situations. Some are best suited to fighting, some to social maneuvering, and others to different kinds of challenges.
>The characters presented here are nameless archetypes, but the Storyteller can use them to represent any kind of character he needs for his game, whether it’s a minor antagonist that only turns up once or a recurring villain that has not only a name but an extensive history with the player characters. The Storyteller should feel free to alter any of these traits if he needs to; they’re given as examples and templates for ease of use.
>>47582170
Cover takes away dice and damage. Guns are lethal because they're fucking guns. You can't dodge bullets.
>>47581916
>There is absolutely nothing stopping the gunman from simply backing away and shooting.
Not in the featureless white room, sure, but other places have these things called "walls".
>>47582119
A mook has a dice pool of 4 can have Down and Dirty combat used against them.
>>47582170
Because Mesmerize relies on using our Expression to mesmerize someone. It's on par with saying the character who's concept is "my character is an accomplished football star" is better at Parkour right out of the gate.
>>47582111
Touhoufag blights everything he touches.
>>47582215
I know, that's exactly what I was saying.
>>47582233
The fight in question is taking place on a street. Even in a closed room, you can open the door, or jump through the window. Or, y'know, close the distance, if you're in such an enclosed space that you can't run.
>>47582059
>One should probably disarm the other.
This requires a grapple, which goes up against Defense. Defense can be rather high.
>Plus when you grapple
Initiating a grapple is Strength + Brawl - Defense.
>Because you have two characters who are hiding and taking snap shots against each other. Even in real life this results in many misses and non-lethal damage.
The melee version of the battle is far more of a stalemate due to Defense.
>You've been told this before, a character can go prone reflexively, giving shooters a penalty against them.
This is *not* a reflexive action.
"A character can drop prone at any point before his action. Dropping to the ground costs his action for the turn, as does getting back up from a prone position."
>>47582257
Adslahnit is the Dark Souls of internet posters.
>>47582274
>The fight in question is taking place on a street.
Then you run into the alleyway, or into a building, or behind a car, or otherwise away from the person shooting you, because that's how the game works. Hell, that's how life works.
Although honestly, I think "Attack of Opportunity" really should at the very least be a one dot merit that anyone who has 2 Dexterity can take, because I hate all the people who argue that if you're at the back of a three foot wide hallway with someone standing five feet away from you that you can just use your turn's movement to walk through their space without repercussion. Though there are some Fighting Styles that allow you to prevent that, like Courtesie doing lethal damage to everyone within your sphere of influence.
>>47582330
Strength+Brawl+Willpower-Defense, and you can even safely go All Out for the extra 2 dice that will bring you up to a reliable pool. Of course, these two doppelgangers are fighting in a featureless white room with no one else around them, despite being statted out as a challenge for a group of three or four players, so what the hell.
>>47582330
>This requires a grapple, which goes up against Defense. Defense can be rather high.
Disarm does not go against grapple. It's Str + Brawl vs Str + Athletics.
>Initiating a grapple is Strength + Brawl - Defense.
And you have Willpower and the other cop doesn't.
>The melee version of the battle is far more of a stalemate due to Defense.
It's because you're just having characters attack each other without variation.
>This is *not* a reflexive action.
That's a change, but still offers a bonus to Defense where you otherwise might not get one. It's one of the best options to deal with a long range attack with your limited stipulations (lack of anything but standing there or attacking back).
>>47582330
Cqc let's you disarm on a fail. You have to dramatically fail to screw it up.
>>47582428
>Disarm does not go against grapple. It's Str + Brawl vs Str + Athletics.
Blurg.
It does not require a grapple, and does not go against Defense.
>>47582092
Suppose these two police officers are in the most stalemate-like scenario wherein both are hiding behind substantial cover (-3 penalty to hit each other, and an additional -2 penalty to fire out of cover). Their base dice pool for guns is 7, which is then reduced to 2. That gives them a ~51% chance of hitting each other.
If they are using light pistols, then each 1-success shot that hits deals 2 damage, which gets knocked down to 1 bashing damage (minimum of 1 damage regardless of Armor). Thus, rather than the two police officers constantly missing each other, they are consistently hitting each other and taking a bruise each time.
This is *still* faster than trying to go up against Defense.
>>47582456
One of them should probably call for back-up, it's proper procedure.
>>47582139
It's obvious why he's back: he read Mage 2e and he's got opinions on it. Same reason a lot of folks post on these threads. There's no sinister motive to it, if that's what you're thinking.
>>47582428
>>47582447
You are correct. I will concede this. I was looking at the grapple options.
>Disarm
>To snatch an opponent’s weapon away, roll Strength + Brawl contested by the opponent’s Strength + Athletics. If the attacker succeeds, the opponent drops his weapon. If the attacker gets an exceptional success, she takes possession of the opponent’s weapon. On a dramatic failure, she takes damage equal to the weapon’s modifier — if she’s struggling over a gun, for instance, the gun goes off.
If you manage to do this, there is precisely nothing stopping from the opponent for simply picking up their weapon, forcing you to retry the disarm. If there was some sort of rule that made picking up a weapon mid-combat dangerous (almost "opportunity attack"-like), then maybe a disarm would be more threatening, but as it currently stands, a disarm delays an enemy by a turn if it succeeds.
>>47582456
You could take your turns to Aim and get a significant increase to your attack roll. Especially if you decide to leave cover when you do it, eliminating your -2 penalty. Throw in your Willpower and you have a dicepool of 13-3 (for cover) and 10.
You can choose not to Aim and just run around them so they're no longer behind cover.
>>47582456
>This is *still* faster than trying to go up against Defense.
It's almost as if guns are deadly or something.
>>47582505
>If you manage to do this, there is precisely nothing stopping from the opponent for simply picking up their weapon
That would require a Control Weapon maneuver, or if the ST decides that the weapon was a substantial distance away, succeeding on an overpower maneuver and breaking the grapple. Please stop misinterpreting the rules.
>>47582505
CQC steals their weapon on a successful roll. On an exceptional to hurt them with it.
>>47582505
I'll grant you had a point with Mage (which is still going through errata), but you're really reaching here.
I'm a noob to nWoD and so I wanted to ask, is playing a Mummy really as bad as it sounds?
Breaking news! Guns are more dangerous than melee! We're not in the 1800s anymore, so they aren't even! More at the top of the hour.
>>47582522
Aiming provides only a +1 bonus per turn of aiming. You are much better off simply taking the attacks.
If you aim for three turns (probably taking 1 or 2 bashing damage during so), spend the fourth leaving substantial concealment and spending Willpower, and spend Willpower to take a shot, that is a total of 10 dice. That is probably going to deal 3 successes + 1 light pistol - 1 armor = 3 bashing damage, which is not much better than having stayed behind concealment in order to fire.
>>47582578
>It's almost as if guns are deadly or something.
Deadly, yes. *Exaggeratedly* accurate, no.
>That would require a Control Weapon
Now *this* requires a grapple (going up against Defense) or a Fighting Merit.
>or if the ST decides that the weapon was a substantial distance away
This is not in the disarm rules.
>succeeding on an overpower maneuver and breaking the grapple
This takes a grapple, which goes against Defense.
>>47582589
If you are spending Fighting Merits to be better at, well, fighting, then you may as well take a single dot of Firefight in order to add your Firearms dots to your initiative, thereby ensuring that you go first, point at an enemy, and severely wound or incapacitate them on your first turn.
That is just *one* dot of a Fighting Merit.
>>47582605
I just checked page 88, and there really is nothing stopping someone with a weapon on the floor from simply picking it back up.
"Dropping a weapon is a reflexive action, but picking it back up takes an instant action, as does just drawing a weapon normally."
>>47582647
From am OOC gameplay persective? It's not as terrible as it seems. The Descent is a lot slower than one would expect in play, and the powers are pretty satisfying at all levels. That said, there's a shitload of fiddly bits to their template that aren't in other nWoD games. Mummies are a lot of fun, but I wouldn't recommend someone new to nWoD playing one. It's system is made by an Exalted developer, and it really shows.
From an IC perspective, it can be a pretty grim existence, but Mummy is a game with an actual endgame, so it's not all bad.
>>47582704
>Aiming provides only a +1 bonus per turn of aiming. You are much better off simply taking the attacks.
With the bonus you get from aiming you can take a called shot, which can result in the character getting Arm Wrack, causing them to drop their gun and not be able to use anything with that arm.
Which gets past
>I just checked page 88, and there really is nothing stopping someone with a weapon on the floor from simply picking it back up.
>>47582704
You act as if guns don't have any disadvantages. But then again I'm assuming you'll make the logical conclusion that since there are no rules for firearms discharge that they must make no sound.
>>47582704
You just wasted your turn picking up a weapon. In that turn you were shot.
>>47582820
Well, they could pick it up with their other hand, if they were robots who wouldn't experience extreme pain from having their arm fucked up.
>>47582704
CQC let's you run to cover at twice your move speed reflexively when shot at. It's the anti gun melee style.
>>47582858
They can, but he suffers a -2 for off hand weapon usage unless he has the Ambidextrous merit.
And since he's now wasting a turn picking up a gun, you can walk over to his cover and shoot him in the other arm.
>>47582820
>Causing the Tilt: Some supernatural powers can cripple a victim’s limbs or break bones with a touch. A character can have his arm knocked out by a targeted blow to the arm (-2 penalty) that deals more damage than the character’s Stamina. A targeted blow to the hand inflicts this Tilt if it does any damage.
Not only do you take a -2 penalty to the attack roll in the first place (at least you get past armor), but you need to *exceed* the target's Stamina to inflict the Arm Wrack.
The generic beat cop in this example has Stamina 3, so with a light pistol, you would have to score 3 successes on your attack roll to total up to 4 damage. Thus, you are looking at three turns of aiming, a fourth turn spent getting out of cover, an 8 dice to target the other beat cop's arm, giving you only a ~50.65% chance of scoring a success.
If you *do* hit, however, the target then has to spend an instant action to pick up the weapon, and use it with a penalty:
>Offhand Attack
>If a character attacks with her non-dominant hand, whether because her dominant hand is injured, carrying something, or otherwise occupied, or because she’s wielding two weapons at once, the player takes a -2 to her attack.
It seems that the best possible opening move the moment combat begins, however, is to spend Willpower and declare a called shot to the arm right out of the gate, hoping for an Arm Wrack Tilt.
Chronicles of Darkness combat is getting a little strange when the ideal opening move in such a firefight is to attempt a trick shot on the opponent's dominant arm.
>>47582647
What sounds so bad about it? Mummy is my favorite game, so I'm curious what's putting you off.
>>47582922
>It seems that the best possible opening move the moment combat begins, however, is to spend Willpower and declare a called shot to the arm right out of the gate, hoping for an Arm Wrack Tilt.
That's the ideal move between two NPCs with no Merits or templates and only one Willpower who are forced to shoot each other to the death in a white room with two cars to hide behind and who according to you can only shoot each turn.
>call for backup
>have other characters surround him
>get in the car, drive it into enemy
>run away
>get into car, drive away
>use pyrokinetics to set his gun on fire, biokinesis to up your dexterity, numbing touch to cripple them
>use a fighting style
>>47582922
It's almost like preventing somebody from shooting at you is the best option if you aren't gonna go for a killshot(WP+head shot+arbitrary sideways gun for cool points)
>>47582887
>Firing Lines (•): In some situations, your character’s best option is a tactical retreat — especially if he’s inadvertently brought a knife to a gunfight. He can run for cover as a reaction to a ranged attack instead of dropping prone. You give up your action for the turn, but your character can get to any cover that’s within twice his Speed.
This also consumes your entire turn. For the same price, a character can pick up:
>Shoot First (•): In a firefight, the person shot first is usually the loser. Your character has trained herself to fire first in an altercation. If her gun is drawn, add her Firearms score to her Initiative. If she has Quick Draw, she can use Shoot First to draw and fire with increased Initiative in the first turn of combat.
This. The character who focused on Firearms and took Firefight is probably going to go first, force the character with Brawl 3 and Close Quarters Combat to expend their turn just to take cover anyway.
>>47582987
>call for backup
And while you are waiting for backup, it is probably best to shoot the other fellow.
>have other characters surround him
Better yet, have other characters *shoot* the target.
>get in the car, drive it into enemy
It takes time to get in a car and start it up.
>run away
While getting shot and leaving the enemy at large.
>get into car, drive away
See above.
>use pyrokinetics to set his gun on fire
Psychokinesis is a *very* expensive Merit, both in terms of Merit dots and Willpower costs.
>biokinesis to up your dexterity
This costs a Willpower point and takes a full minute. This is not feasible in combat.
>numbing touch to cripple them
This costs Willpower, requires you to get close anyway, and is probably only as effective as shooting.
>use a fighting style
Firefight 1 is indeed an excellent Merit.
>>47582998
The ideal opening move in a firefight being to shoot the target's gun-arm is not quite "realistic" either, and it only furthers exaggerated firearm supremacy.
Can I just say that it's really funny that this discussion is going on when only a couple threads ago, someone was throwing a ruckus over the idea that killing someone with a gun in CofD could take more than one shot?
>>47583103
Not everyone has Firearms. The character with CQC will be much better off.
>>47583131
I know, right?
>>47583103
>The ideal opening move in a firefight being to shoot the target's gun-arm is not quite "realistic" either, and it only furthers exaggerated firearm supremacy.
the ideal opening move is to shoot them to death
what do you think is realistic? tossing your gun away, taking out your katana and knocking their bullets away with fancy swinging?
>>47582170
/k/ here again!
There is nothing exaggerated about their lethality.
>>47583131
Wonder what new threads will bring
the easiest solution to getting killed by guns is: become a werewolf
>>47583201
"Easiest"
It's entirely based on Luna's whims
Vampires have it a little less easy than Werewolves, since they can't heal as quickly, but they do reduce all damage from firearms to Bashing.
>>47583177
Technically there is, but it's an abstraction to begin with. The main issue with guns is the main issue with everything: It takes 14 minutes to completely bleed out and die, even though it could take *hours* for that to happen in real life.
>>47583167
To be fair with that one sword style in Hurt Locker...
>>47583103
But they'll never hit them. And shocker, like in real life, guns kill people.
>>47583177
My issue can be clarified as "exaggerated lethality *compared to melee weapons*."
Melee weapons have to contend with Defense, which can be a rather sizeable value.
In the example antagonists, the beat cop has 5 dice to use their baton, 6 dice to grapple, and 7 dice to shoot a firearm. The beat cop also has Defense 6. Their dice pool to attack another beat cop is thus down to a chance die.
Likewise, the generic "cocky mob hitman" has 6 dice for knockout blows, 7 dice for concealed blades, and 8 dice for guns. They have Defense 7. If they attack each other in melee, they are also down to chance die rolls.
Firearms, on the other hand, simply *ignore* that high Defense value, and not even substantial concealment helps all that much (it is just a -3 penalty, compared to Defense which can be 6 or 7 for those sample characters). Even then, substantial concealment penalizes the one hiding behind it as well.
If firearms should be lethal, then melee weapons should be lethal when they are in range. However, in Chronicles of Darkness, there are no "opportunity attacks" or anything of the sort, making "back up and shoot, getting past Defense" trivial.
>>47583201
What's werewolf regeneration like again? Something like three bashing per turn of combat right and x amount of lethal if they spend essence?
>>47583256
>To be fair with that one sword style in Hurt Locker...
yeah, I said the more cinematic and ridiculous stuff is going to be comin in hurt locker
>>47583273
> If they attack each other in melee, they are also down to chance die rolls.
I like how your problem with combat is solely represented by two npcs fighting each other
