|
Ferrinus posted:You can Pattern Prime to reconfigure someone else's soul such that they have the same mage sight you do. Patterning is 4-dot, though, isn't it? This actually seems like a pretty significant change. Previously if you, say, wanted to give aura sight to all your buddies as a Mastigos you'd just do it. Now you actually need to tell your buddies "hey, go learn some Mind".
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
On the other hand it's relatively easy to grant ability to see ghosts if that's all you want to give. Death 2's all you need for that! The trick is giving Mage Sight, with all the benefits that gives you passively.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:I think that's a little deceptive? Let's please not do this. The modern era is also a historical period where everybody is active. The most recent Sothic Turn is 2012. EDIT: Dave said it, yeah. I mean, I can't address the notion that the very possibility that the game can play well outside the stereotypical chronicle is some kind of trick, because basically, I don't think it's a trick when the instructions are right there. MalcolmSheppard fucked around with this message at 01:46 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Daeren posted:Mummy can work, but you need to be really, really willing to wrestle with it, you're almost required to read the later books where the line starts hitting a stride, and most groups I know would probably end up discarding more than a bit of its mechanical/fluff oddities. I'm pretty sure the dev of mummy would cry after he's how i've mangled it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
Rubix Squid posted:I'm pretty sure the dev of mummy would cry after he's how i've mangled it. I mean, yes, but tonally you're actually not too far off the intended character arc, is the impressive thing. You just got a little more...bombastic about it. And rewrote like 75% of the backstory.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
That said the Mummy dev is kind of infamously overprotective and touchy. See also the time he got mad that the Hunter Mummy tie-in chapter included a bunch of guys who killed and ate mummies for power.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
Dave Brookshaw posted:One of the periods where everyone is active is the present day. This is true! On the other hand, if you're using the Sothic Turn in your campaign, then you aren't really doing the whole cycle-of-Descents thing. Like, there are definitely ways to play Mummy, and they are in the book. My complaint is that the book presents itself as being a wide-open game of similar scope to other Chronicles of Darkness games, when really it has very specific notions about how it wants to be run, which it won't come clean about except in the secret sections for STs only. I would really enjoy playing a Mummy 2e that really got the chance to shave off all the legacy elements and fiddly mechanics and become some kind of really intense storygame-type experience, because I think that would be pretty awesome.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Mummy gets a lot easier to think about how to run once you have read Book of the Deceived. Guild Halls is very much for dipping into, a text book. My own plan for a Mummy chronicle is essentially your group wakes up and starts to find out another faction - perhaps Deceived, are trying to create the philosopher's stone that will enable them to break their ties to the Sothic cycle and the Judges. As the game would progress the players would realise that in the past that they had each attempted the same, and have to come to a decision on whether it is a worthy cause, or if the costs outweigh the benefits. I have to read some of the other books still, especially the city books for the game.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:This is true! On the other hand, if you're using the Sothic Turn in your campaign, then you aren't really doing the whole cycle-of-Descents thing. Yup. I am really not a fan of the variable TNs. It felt wrong given how CofD is built, and seemed to be done in order to ring fence Mummy from the rest.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:17
|
|
|
dr_ether posted:Yup. I am really not a fan of the variable TNs. It felt wrong given how CofD is built, and seemed to be done in order to ring fence Mummy from the rest. Definitely wrong given how CofD is built, but nah, I think it's just peculiar to Mummy because Mummy's power mechanics guy, a veteran of Exalted and the classic World of Darkness, thought it was a neat trick nobody else was doing, and didn't see that there was a pretty good reason nobody else was doing it. That thing I said about Mummy having a lot of rules that mistake complication and exception cases for detail and depth, I don't think that's entirely his doing, but it definitely has a certain familiar ring to it to a weary Exalted reader.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
The way I intended to run Mummy was very much like The Fountain in that basically time and the Descent was something to play around with and we'd freely switch times and places, connected by thematic ties between the two. Only got two sessions in but it worked quite well! Just have to have the right group. I love all the flavor personally, but yeah, the mechanics are fiddly and it really would benefit from a 2E update that took care of some of the fiddliness.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
I honestly didn't care about Mummy at all until the past two pages, so whatever this is keep it up. Pretty sure we have a few of the books in my group's communal giant pile of nWoD stuff...
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Quick question re: How An Angel Dies from the core Demon book, spoiler'd because I've got people who read this thread playing through it rn (please spoil your answers too!): How exactly does the occult matrix at the bridge work? Regina Donahue smashes the phone compulsively, at the behest of the God Machine, but why? The circuit that summons the Lambent is activated when the phone is whole, not shattered, or at least it suggests as such. What purpose does her destruction of public property serve?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
I'd assume Regina's involvement has some significance re subaltern/mentally unwell person vandalizing property. Or she was just linked with the bridge when The Machine moved in, so she got tied up into the whole system and the supervising Wheel called the cops on her to keep her from loving things up. Or maybe Regina is more important than anyone suspects....
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
ErichZahn posted:I'd assume Regina's involvement has some significance re subaltern/mentally unwell person vandalizing property. Or she was just linked with the bridge when The Machine moved in, so she got tied up into the whole system and the supervising Wheel called the cops on her to keep her from loving things up. But with the way my game is moving, the characters have no real interest in investigating the one means of learning what the matrix is meant to accomplish (taking apart the broken phone). If the phone is fixed by utility workers while characters are in the past, they're likely to be sealed there. Or the Lambent could appear should the super-cryptid Flannery's summoning make it to the other side of the gate and get into a big, messy brawl. As it turns out, there's not a lot you can do to push cautious players toward loving with infrastructure just to see what it does. The fact that they could do so doesn't readily occur to them. It is also a little weird that there are no Angels or cultists on the GM's payroll doing any sort of work with that infrastructure if you go straight from the book. Basic Chunnel fucked around with this message at 06:57 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Are you folks SURE Adamant Hand lets you cast a spell as a reflexive action that isn't normally a reflexive action? Because I'm not. As far as I can tell, what Adamant Hand does is let you, on a spell on which you're going to use two yantras rather than one, do it like this: My reading of "allows use of that skill in combat as a reflexive Order tool yantra" was that it made the attack the reflexive action, not the spell. Also don't Order tool yantras only give a +1 bonus, rather than a big bonus? Dave Brookshaw posted:Much as it pains me to admit it (hi Ferrinus!) he's right. It doesn't allow you to cast a spell reflexively if you couldn't already. Okay now I'm really confused. Like, isn't that absolute garbage? Cast and punch at the same time is pretty good - not great - and still worse than all of the other Order-specific merits. Being able to do combat actions while you get a +1 to a spell just seems naff unless I'm massively missing something. At least in 1st ed, nobody ever, ever chanted in High Speech in combat because you're giving up a whole turn for a +2. In 2e, if you're desperate to get a spell off then why are you wasting a turn doing a standard combat action? I don't think I get it. What is Adamant Hand supposed to encourage? Why is this supposed to be worth picking up? Doodmons fucked around with this message at 12:09 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 11:31
|
|
|
Adamant Hand essentially suffers (at least from what I can see) from overvaluing yantra usage. The idea is: the mages all start setting up their yantras for their big spell, but that means spending their whole turn doing it. The Adamantine Arrow duder can punch a dude while setting up their yantra! The problem is, people really aren't going to do that first thing. In reality, they're typically going to use one reflexive yantra and fire off that spell in round 1. Outside of rote spells, yantra bonuses really are just not worth spending a whole round. +1 or +2 will practically never be worth giving up your entire turn. So, you know, people don't do that. Adamant Hand fixes a problem that doesn't really exist. Now, the way you CAN see Adamant Hand is that it essentially gives you sort of a "freebie" +1, as most Adamantine Arrow duders are going to probably begin the fight by punching you in your stupid goddamn face. Which would work great if it actually was just a floating +1 to whatever your next spell is. But it isn't. Unfortunately, you need to know that you're casting a spell in round two and what spell your casting, all before round two even happens, and it in turn has to be a spell that's unimportant enough that "punch them in their stupid goddamn face" is a better option for round 1, but somehow not for round 2. That's very specific. Specific enough so that I don't really see it coming up, uh, at all. So yeah, it's kinda (really) garbage.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
Also, is Adamant Hand a combat merit for the purposes of the Praetorian Crown of Fury? I would assume it is.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 12:12
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Unfortunately, you need to know that you're casting a spell in round two and what spell your casting, all before round two even happens, and it in turn has to be a spell that's unimportant enough that "punch them in their stupid goddamn face" is a better option for round 1, but somehow not for round 2. That's very specific. Specific enough so that I don't really see it coming up, uh, at all. I haven't read 2e (or even 1e, really) enough to know if this is even (still?) a thing, but what comes to mind is hiding your magic. Like punching someone and then making them topple over with Mind or Life is less overtly supernatural than snapping your fingers and making it happen. Likewise striking something and destroying it with Death, throwing something and sending it flying with Forces or even slapping someone and forcing out a possessing entity with Spirit. I'm not convinced a +1 bonus to that is worth 2 Merit dots, but at least it's a situation that might come up more than once in a blue moon.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Should I take this as "Kurieg stop getting distracted and finish the loving book already" post? Nah, I'm not the boss of F&F or anything like that.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Nah, I'm not the boss of F&F or anything like that. Haven't saved up enough XP to buy the merit yet?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
Yay!!! My group finally agreed to play Demon! I never even bought it because I knew it'd just make me sad, like my very lonely copy of Promethean. Is it stand alone, or do I need to also get The God Machine Chronicles? I'm dumb and I forget.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
New World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness game lines are not stand-alone, but rather require the core books for the overarching line as well. If you have the core book for NWoD First Edition, that should be fine if goofy because Demon at least includes all the relevant rules updates in the back. If you instead have the new core book for CoD, that should require no translation at all because Demon is intended to run on that specific rules framework. That said, the actual God-Machine Chronicle book does go more in depth on what exactly the God-Machine is and does, and thus why a bunch of angels might care enough about its schemes to fall. But from a mechanics standpoint, you won't need GMC.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Yay!!! My group finally agreed to play Demon! There's a good rule of thumb for this one! All the big titled Monster: the Premise books that use the first edition rules require the World of Darkness Rulebook for a full rule set. All the big titled Monster: the Premise books that use the second edition rules stand alone and don't require any other book. There's also a good reason you might be unclear on this, because Demon is the one exception. Demon uses the second edition rules but was made before Vampire 2e set the format for the 2e corebooks, and has an appendix with the second edition core rules in a patch format to supplement the first edition core. So to run Demon, you need either the first edition World of Darkness Rulebook or any one other second edition corebook, including the Chronicles of Darkness Rulebook or any second edition monster core. The God-Machine Chronicle doesn't count; it presented the second edition rules as a patch the same way Demon itself does. However, the Chronicles of Darkness Rulebook does reprint most of the material from the God-Machine Chronicle that isn't in Demon already. Hope your group enjoys Demon! It's a really strong game with a really strong corebook, weird edition patching confusion aside.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Adamant Hand essentially suffers (at least from what I can see) from overvaluing yantra usage. The idea is: the mages all start setting up their yantras for their big spell, but that means spending their whole turn doing it. The Adamantine Arrow duder can punch a dude while setting up their yantra! Not according to some 60-odd playtest sessions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Dave Brookshaw posted:Not according to some 60-odd playtest sessions. I have not played 60-odd playtest sessions, but it would take an incredible amount of work on either my or the Storyteller's part to orchestrate a combat situation in which I felt compelled to spend two turns casting a spell with a +1 bonus rather than spend two turns casting a spell twice. All I need is a single success, after all, and even if my base dicepool is 2 somehow, spending two turns to roll a total of 4 dice beats spending two turns to roll a total of 3. Obviously, Reach, Mana, and Willpower costs might sum such that a second try is ruinously expensive... but would they, really, especially in a combat situation in which the price for saving myself some Mana is giving my enemy another turn? Unlikely. All that said, I think Adamant Hand is fine and that the notion that it's worthless compared to the other merits unless it lets you take two turns per turn is absurd. If I was playing a mystagogue or a libertine I'd never spend two combat turns doing nothing but casting a single spell, because as I've noted that's an incredibly bad tactical move in almost every case... but, as an arrow, I never have to do that, because what would be 'dead' turns become attacks instead. And, given that I'm an arrow, those are probably attacks thrown with Strength 9 Weaponry 6 with the 8-again rule or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
That aside, the more I think about it the less I like how rote Yantras work, because they pretty much drown out all the Yantras that are actually interesting. I'm wishing that rote mudras provided some orthogonal, stacking bonus, like any rote spell gets rolled for twice and you pick the roll you like, or all rote spells get the rote action rule whether or not you made them up, or something.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:All that said, I think Adamant Hand is fine and that the notion that it's worthless compared to the other merits unless it lets you take two turns per turn is absurd. If I was playing a mystagogue or a libertine I'd never spend two combat turns doing nothing but casting a single spell, because as I've noted that's an incredibly bad tactical move in almost every case... but, as an arrow, I never have to do that, because what would be 'dead' turns become attacks instead. And, given that I'm an arrow, those are probably attacks thrown with Strength 9 Weaponry 6 with the 8-again rule or whatever. I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. You're saying that spending 2 turns doing nothing is something you should never do - but Adamant Hand is okay because you never need to deliberately make that bad tactical choice? I think my problem is that if it was just any old 2 dot merit then it would be fine - you sink the 2xp to never be put in the situation where you'd have to make that choice. But this is the Adamantine Arrow's thing, it's their big mechanical incentive to be played - and it's literally a +1 bonus to a roll that you only need 1 success on. If they use it to its maximum effect - ie, alternating combat actions and spells for every turn of the combat, they're 1 dice better on the 50% of their rolls where they don't need the +1 than the Mystagogue. Am I just being a moron here or is that not worth 2xp? Cross compare to the Praetorians, their opposite numbers in the Seers who get: free mage armor, Mystery Commands, Resources and their opponents lose combat merits and they can keep spending XP for even more benefits. If the gameplay that Adamant Hand is meant to encourage is Join The Seers, then I guess wherever Liesmith is he gained a minor charge.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
I would note that given the primary method of making spells do more than the default effect is to take penalties to a roll with a small dicepool, +1 dice is a bigger deal than it seems at first.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. You're saying that spending 2 turns doing nothing is something you should never do - but Adamant Hand is okay because you never need to deliberately make that bad tactical choice? I think my problem is that if it was just any old 2 dot merit then it would be fine - you sink the 2xp to never be put in the situation where you'd have to make that choice. But this is the Adamantine Arrow's thing, it's their big mechanical incentive to be played - and it's literally a +1 bonus to a roll that you only need 1 success on. If they use it to its maximum effect - ie, alternating combat actions and spells for every turn of the combat, they're 1 dice better on the 50% of their rolls where they don't need the +1 than the Mystagogue. Am I just being a moron here or is that not worth 2xp? No, you never have to make the bad choice, because you never spend your turns doing nothing. You spend them either attacking or casting, and if you make sure to follow the former with the latter you get a +1 bonus that your counterparts in the other Orders can't get. +1 dice to a roll you need only one success on is pretty good if you can also take dice away from that roll to give it increased effect, remember; if my dicepool for some spell is 5, bumping it to 6 isn't that big a deal... but that means that if I accept a -2 penalty to make my spell hit two targets instead of one, I'm now bumping a 3 to a 4. Not bad! If it were up to me I'd probably make yantras worth a default +2 rather than +1 just so they neatly cancelled out spell factors or something, but this is perfectly fine. Two merit dots for the ability to take two actions per turn, on the other hand, would be insane. quote:Cross compare to the Praetorians, their opposite numbers in the Seers who get: free mage armor, Mystery Commands, Resources and their opponents lose combat merits and they can keep spending XP for even more benefits. If the gameplay that Adamant Hand is meant to encourage is Join The Seers, then I guess wherever Liesmith is he gained a minor charge. You're absolutely right about this and it's dumb as hell that the Seers are one-on-one as good at magic (better, really) as members of the Pentacle. You should join the Seers when you don't care about personal power as much as you care about ease, validation, institutional support, etc. ... Hey, here's a funny detail about as-written Adamant Hand: It is useless to both sample characters in the Adamantine Arrow Order writeup. Ferrinus fucked around with this message at 20:08 on May 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I would note that given the primary method of making spells do more than the default effect is to take penalties to a roll with a small dicepool, +1 dice is a bigger deal than it seems at first. Yeah, Mage has really moved away from "more successes is better" and instead it's about the spell factors to start with. Yantras are there to beef your dicepool so that you can take more penalties, rather than get more successes. A mystagogue who wants to just bless somebody, sure, they probably don't need to spend two turns doing it. But if they want to bless the whole team with Fate? That'll take two turns to prepare all their yantras. An Arrow without Adamant hand can punch a dude and then fire a magic missile as normal, but with Adamant Hand expanding their yantra usage, they can probably hit two missiles.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Hey DaveB, just wanted to thank you for the APs of Broken Diamond and Soul Cage. What a fun read! Really makes me wish I knew folks who were up for some serious-business WoD playing.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
I Am Just a Box posted:There's a good rule of thumb for this one! Thanks! I knew there was one that was weird, and I thought it was Demon, but I wanted confirmation. I have the old core book, and it's practically been memorized by now so whatever. I checked the OP, but there was nothing on that. Maybe there should be a note? Purchased the .pdf and I'm currently abusing the poo poo out of office printing to make myself a physical copy for free.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
As I said, you hit a really weird problem where you have to have a spell in mind a) that cannot be obsolete by the time you cast it, b) that is not a better option then punching a dude in the face RIGHT NOW, c) IS a better option then punching a dude in the face next turn, and d) needs a single +1 bonus. It's just extremely, extremely specific. Again, a level of specific that I'm not sure is really going to come up. The Arrow is probably built up explicitly to put enemies down fast and hard without needing to throw magic around. Hell, start the day off with a day-long duration cast of Kinetic Blow and you're stunning and knocking down everyone you punch with a weapon bonus to your unarmed attacks - it's gonna be hard in the middle of a down and dirty fight to think of a spell that beats your punch there. "I COULD give this bad guy a penalty to their rolls, or I could just beat them unconscious and take them out of the fight now right..." Yeah, an Adamant Hand could punch then cast two magic missiles rather then cast one on each turn, but then, they could also just punch twice. If the bonus was hefty enough to matter (seriously, +1?), or if it was more flexible, that'd be different. But, well, it's neither. Dave Brookshaw posted:Not according to some 60-odd playtest sessions. Then I respectfully wonder where a +1 bonus is worth ditching your full turn - where it'd be better then just trying to cast the spell twice. I just don't see where it'd happen.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Is saying "Omae Wa Mou Shindeiru" a Yantra? If so I think I just came up with a reason to punch someone in one round, then cast a spell on the next.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:Then I respectfully wonder where a +1 bonus is worth ditching your full turn - where it'd be better then just trying to cast the spell twice. I just don't see where it'd happen. If you pile enough Reach onto your spell that it provokes a heavy paradox risk and/or if you need to burn substantial Mana and Willpower to be able to cast it at all, then it's at least not strictly worse to spend a turn 'aiming' the spell rather than merely try it twice. But, that's pretty hard to engineer. Like, flip the decision on its head: how much Mana, Willpower, and or paradox risk would you be willing to pay in order to get an extra turn in combat? It's probably a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 22:13
|
|
|
Well if you desperately need the +1 to cast your badass spell, why not buy the Shadow Name merit and for the same price as Adamant Hand you can have a +2 to your spell and cast it on turn 1 instead of turn 2? Or go hog wild, buy Shadow Name 3 and Cabal Theme and get a +4 to your turn 1 spell. That's 2 whole additional spell factors. Cirno's right, it's not literally completely useless, it's just... never going to come up, and sucks. I don't think having double the number of actions for 2 merit dots is right either, but it would have been nice if it was a cool, thematic combat trick that made Arrows actually dangerous instead of "I could theoretically do this thing that I'll never actually do in a million years"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Dave Brookshaw posted:Not according to some 60-odd playtest sessions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Doodmons posted:Well if you desperately need the +1 to cast your badass spell, why not buy the Shadow Name merit and for the same price as Adamant Hand you can have a +2 to your spell and cast it on turn 1 instead of turn 2? Or go hog wild, buy Shadow Name 3 and Cabal Theme and get a +4 to your turn 1 spell. That's 2 whole additional spell factors. Cirno's right, it's not literally completely useless, it's just... never going to come up, and sucks. I don't think having double the number of actions for 2 merit dots is right either, but it would have been nice if it was a cool, thematic combat trick that made Arrows actually dangerous instead of "I could theoretically do this thing that I'll never actually do in a million years" Shadow Name acting as a +2 (or +3) Yantra is pretty good, but remember - you can normally only draw on one Yantra reflexively. If you have both Shadow Name and Adamant Hand, you could conceivably do something like this: Turn 1: Punch someone, reflexively building up a +1 bonus to your next spell Turn 2: Cast your spell while reflexively drawing on your Shadow Name, adding 3 more dice and therefore actually throwing the spell with a total bonus of +4. Of course, the single best Yantra is almost always going to be a rote mudra. So, if you can at all help it, you'll punch for +1 on turn 1, then wave your hands for +6 more on turn 2, and therefore cast a spell with a total +7 dice (which really means +5 dice and a free spell factor). I'm not sure that's legit, but I'm pretty sure it is. The relevant text is: pre:A mage can draw upon one Yantra as a reflexive action when casting a spell; each further Yantra extends the casting time of instant spells by a turn.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Mathematically, what's wrong with oWoD having the difficulty set the TN for a success on a die? I heard some people say it makes the math wonky, but, to me, it seems like the rule "more dice = better" remains true, ignoring the "botch cancels success" rule mucking things up.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2016 02:08
|
|
