Vampire The Masquerade D20?

[Achan hiArusa]

Again

Sorren,

And I quote:

"From everything I've seen, I've drawn this conclusion:
The new Storyteller system is d20 with d10s."

Which indicates that you believed that the White Wolf developers cribbed heavily from the d20 system without precedent of their own. If that is not what you believed fine. I will agree at least in principle to your new position that the games have some superficial similarities.

As for defense. Since the attack and damage rolls are the same in the new WoD, defense works like damage reduction AND Armor Class. You roll Strength + Brawl (or Weaponry) + Weapon Damage bonus minus your opponent's Defense + Armor [Ranged uses Dexterity + Firearms (or Athletics) and firearms don't count defense]. Each success indicates a point of damage (Reread the first part of Mary's Child pages 5-6 under combat) which means high defense prevents you from taking damage.

Most of the time (and I am guilty of this) combat sessions were usually the result of lazying DMing or Storytelling in the games I have played. It was easier to just write down a few relevant monster stats and then run the game than it was to actually prepare scenes in which an adventure was advanced. And I will say it happens more often in a D&D game than any other type of game I play in (except for Cyberpunk or Shadowrun). When I run a d20 game that isn't D&D the transformation is amazing. Combats lessen in frequency and the characters actually engage the world (this definitely happened in my Pulp Heroes d20 game). Maybe its just my players.

As for D&D 3.5, I would say it has an overly functional combat system. Everytime you define a feat that says: "You can do this" then characters who try to improvise during combat are slapped down by the rules lawyers because they say "You can't do that, you don't have the feat." Ahem...Tactical feats from Complete Warrior being the worst about that.

 

[buzz]

As for D&D 3.5, I would say it has an overly functional combat system. Everytime you define a feat that says: "You can do this" then characters who try to improvise during combat are slapped down by the rules lawyers because they say "You can't do that, you don't have the feat." Ahem...Tactical feats from Complete Warrior being the worst about that.

Was there a fire sale at the Rusty Tool Shed Shoppe or something?

 

[Sorren]

Sorren,

And I quote:

"From everything I've seen, I've drawn this conclusion:
The new Storyteller system is d20 with d10s."

Which indicates that you believed that the White Wolf developers cribbed heavily from the d20 system without precedent of their own.

Did you read the same sentence I wrote? You quoted it, but did you read it?

"The new Storyteller system is d20 with d10s."

This doesn't indicate anything more than what it clearly says. The new Storyteller system is very much like the d20 system. The new changes make it more similar, but the combination of new and old ideas folded into the new system make it nearly identicle with a few exceptions.

I said the two systems are nearly the same. I couldn't care less how it got that way. I never said otherwise. the fact that the old WoD system had skills before D&D is irrelevent. It's meaningless in this conversation.

As for defense. Since the attack and damage rolls are the same in the new WoD, defense works like damage reduction AND Armor Class. You roll Strength + Brawl (or Weaponry) + Weapon Damage bonus minus your opponent's Defense + Armor [Ranged uses Dexterity + Firearms (or Athletics) and firearms don't count defense]. Each success indicates a point of damage (Reread the first part of Mary's Child pages 5-6 under combat) which means high defense prevents you from taking damage.

You're right. Defense really is AC and Damage Reduction combined. Same idea, but with only one roll.

When I run a d20 game that isn't D&D the transformation is amazing. Combats lessen in frequency and the characters actually engage the world (this definitely happened in my Pulp Heroes d20 game). Maybe its just my players.

I think that's a problem with your group. D&D, Starwars, Call of Cthulhu, and d20 Modern all use basicly the same rules. If your group only chooses to "role-play" when playing those other games, that isn't D&D's fought. It certainly has nothing to do with the rule systems.

As for D&D 3.5, I would say it has an overly functional combat system.

You're complaining because it works? That's a first.

Everytime you define a feat that says: "You can do this" then characters who try to improvise during combat are slapped down by the rules lawyers because they say "You can't do that, you don't have the feat."

With a few minor exceptions (that have been mostly cleaned up in 3.5), I think this is a good thing. Otherwise, you essentially give every character access to every feat. Not every character should be able to Power Attack, Cleave, etc. Otherwise, why play a Fighter? Why not always play a Wizard if you can always come up with odd combinations and bizaar tactics that give you bonuses?

Ahem...Tactical feats from Complete Warrior being the worst about that.

Well Tactical feats are hardly a part of the core system. That said, I still don't see the problem. Your options are to not use them at all, only allow them to the characters that qualify, or give them to everyone free.

The first and second is certainly an option. But how could you realisticly explain a character being trained in all of these styles?

For flavor issues, it's not a problem. You want a character trained in techniques inspired by hunting birds? Fine. Done. You don't NEED the Raptor School tactical feat to be able to say that. It's just flavor and is easily handled by the normal system. You can change the way you describe attacks without adding bonuses to hit, damage, or other mechanical effects.

You want mechanical benifits? You need to take the feat. Maybe getting the feat represents better understanding of your chosen fighting style.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

Ah jeez

Sorry to me is means equals (must be the 30 or so credit hours of math). And that is so obviously not the case. The revised Storyteller is not "d20 with d10s." You don't add your dice together, there are no classes or levels, there are no hit points, you don't fight until you collapse with no ill effect. Ability scores contribute to half you ability to perform a task not down to 1/5 as in the case of d20. There are no independent saving throws, everything is a function of skills and abilities. I can go on and on.

It is far better to say that 3.5 is simply Ars Magica with a d20 instead of a d10 (just look at the game you'll see, both d20 and WoD both spring from the same source.).

I will treasure my old rusty saw as much as I damn well please Buzz.

 

[Sorren]

I'll just say this, and let it die.

While the systems are certainly not identicle, they have a great deal in common. moreso now than ever. With the addition of things like templates, "feats", and Defense, the new WoD system looks a great deal more like d20 than I ever thought it could.

And this is good. Maybe now it'll have a functional combat system because suffering through a round of combat with the old system was like driving a nine inch rusty nail into my kneecap.

Suger-coat it however you like, but an unasable combat system in an RPG isn't "a feature designed to promote role-playing", it's poor game design and a mistake from the start.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm still skeptical, but this is good news for Storyteller fans (which I'm not).

If anything, I'll just buy it for the WoD fluff (reference source material) so I can translate it into the d20 System.

 

[buzz]

It is far better to say that 3.5 is simply Ars Magica with a d20 instead of a d10 (just look at the game you'll see, both d20 and WoD both spring from the same source.).

One of the many reasons I love 3.x so much. It learned a lot from ArM.

I will treasure my old rusty saw as much as I damn well please Buzz.

Okey-doke. As long as you know that's what it is.