Monte Cooks WoD is for 3.5

[mmu1]

Yeah defense is based on Dex or Wits, but it can be doubled by actively dodging...increased through spenditure of Willpower, etc. I think what your missing is that it's only one attribute because it's like having automatic successes, ie it is always active and there is no chance to be left totally defenseless(except in special circumstances) or to get a dramatic failure on your defense, an attacker can roll no successes or even a dramatic failure.

Doesn't dodging mean you use up your action to do it? That effectively makes it worthless for every situation in which you're actually trying to fight, instead of running for your life.

Which just reminded me of something else I had an issue with - because active defense is really worthless, and the attacker rolls so many more dice, generally, than the defender, you virtually always hit. That doesn't really do it for me in a non-D&D setting...

And for the record, my combat experiences involved both humans and vampires going at each other with guns and melee weapons. I'm also certain that a more experienced GM could have ran the combats better than in the game I played in, but a lot of the things I had problems with are, IMO, intrinsic to the system.

 

[hexgrid]

I'm not especially excited about this game. Trying to play core D&D with level adjustments is already wonky and unbalanced. Compare a level 5 pixie fighter to a level 9 human wizard, and there's really no comparison. A vampire's got a what, +8 level adjustment? So level 4 vampire fighters are rolling with level 12 human sorcerers? I figure there won't be D&D style magic, but still. Unless there's a few big changes in how the LA system works, this game is going to flop on its face. I'm not about to drop $35 just to hope to be able to cannibalize it.

Kinda weird to review and reject a rules system before you have any idea what it will involve. You noticed that these issues would exist just through casual observation of the product's subject matter - do you really think the people who worked on it for months aren't smart enough to figure it out themselves? (Especially since Monte has addressed the +LA issue previously, way back in Arcana Unearthed.)

 

[Imaro]

Doesn't dodging mean you use up your action to do it? That effectively makes it worthless for every situation in which you're actually trying to fight, instead of running for your life.

Yes it does...just like in most rpg's. You also realize any Vampire power that increases the trait this is based upon should increase the defense as well.

Which just reminded me of something else I had an issue with - because active defense is really worthless, and the attacker rolls so many more dice, generally, than the defender, you virtually always hit. That doesn't really do it for me in a non-D&D setting...

I think this has more to do with your assumptions than on the rules themselves. A gunfight, knifefight, brawl, etc. is dangerous. It is a non-D&D setting and there are penalties to getting whacked, that get worse as you get whacked more. No you can't take 55 hit points worth of damage and still fight like your fresh, because the tropes of the genre are different. Most protagonists in horror games are hurt both brutally and quickly. It's this type of thing that leads them into desperate and morally questionable acts to survive, and it's the crux that the morality mechanic in nWoD is built upon. It almost feels like you wanted a modern adventure/action game instead of horror.

And for the record, my combat experiences involved both humans and vampires going at each other with guns and melee weapons. I'm also certain that a more experienced GM could have ran the combats better than in the game I played in, but a lot of the things I had problems with are, IMO, intrinsic to the system.

Well, I will throw this out there...willpower does not, unless it's a houserule or Vampire power??, allow rerolls. It adds a +3 to a roll or +2 to a resistance. Not exactly sure where your GM got that from.

 

[mmu1]

Oh yeah, one more, but it's a big one - I'm surprised I forgot it.

Fighting with two weapons or any other discipline/style/merit that allows multiple attacks in any shape or form is completely broken, despite being relatively pricey to get. Very nearly doubling your attack dice simply can not be made to work in a balanced way. Hell, it's better than high-level Celerity.

That, and it also doesn't make sense given the abstract die pool mechanic nWoD uses - it'd make a lot more sense for dual-wielding to simply add a die or two to your pool. (which is what some other combat-realted abilities already do, and it's the basic nWoD mechanic)

 

[mmu1]

Yes it does...just like in most rpg's. You also realize any Vampire power that increases the trait this is based upon should increase the defense as well.

Can you give some examples of those RPGs? Because I have an easier time thinking of ones where using an active defense doesn't mean you give up your ability to act for a round. Old WoD, Shadowrun (all editions besides 4th), GURPS, Riddle of Steel, the d6 System...

I think this has more to do with your assumptions than on the rules themselves. A gunfight, knifefight, brawl, etc. is dangerous. It is a non-D&D setting and there are penalties to getting whacked, that get worse as you get whacked more. No you can't take 55 hit points worth of damage and still fight like your fresh, because the tropes of the genre are different. Most protagonists in horror games are hurt both brutally and quickly. It's this type of thing that leads them into desperate and morally questionable acts to survive, and it's the crux that the morality mechanic in nWoD is built upon. It almost feels like you wanted a modern adventure/action game instead of horror.

Hehe... It's not a bug, it's actually a feature? It's really a mechanic designed to force people into moral quandries? I think that's... pretty thin.

I really don't see how a system in which you'll almost always get hit if someone fires a gun at you, but that one hit will almost never kill you, represents the horror genre. Or any other genre. Or reality... It's a lousy mechanic that provides results which feel contrived.

Well, I will throw this out there...willpower does not, unless it's a houserule or Vampire power??, allow rerolls. It adds a +3 to a roll or +2 to a resistance. Not exactly sure where your GM got that from.

No, I think you're right. I remembered using Willpower to boost the chances of making resistance rolls, and mistakenly thought it allowed you to re-roll your failures. (the influence of all the Shadowrun I've been playing, probably) The effect is still the same, though - you burn Willpower to improve your chances of success.

 

[Imaro]

Oh yeah, one more, but it's a big one - I'm surprised I forgot it.

Fighting with two weapons or any other discipline/style/merit that allows multiple attacks in any shape or form is completely broken, despite being relatively pricey to get. Very nearly doubling your attack dice simply can not be made to work in a balanced way. Hell, it's better than high-level Celerity.

That, and it also doesn't make sense given the abstract die pool mechanic nWoD uses - it'd make a lot more sense for dual-wielding to simply add a die or two to your pool. (which is what some other combat-realted abilities already do, and it's the basic nWoD mechanic)

Uhm...this is just not true. First to get to the point where you can actually attack more than once with Fighting Style:Two Weapons is a 3/4 dot merit.
1.) It does not double your attack dice...it's 2 seperate attacks against one character(Focused Attack) or two seperate(Fluid Attack).

2.) The first attack is at your normal die pool...the second is at a -3 penalty(-2 off hand & -1 maneuver penalty) ex. 4 str +4 brawl= 1st attk(8 dice) 2nd attk( 5 dice). You then still subtract the defense of your opponent from the totals, let's say avg 3 so 1st attk(5 dice)46% chance of 2 or more successes & 2nd Attk(2 dice) 9% chance of 2 or more succeses

3.) When using these maneuvers your defense is at a zero. Which means anyone who attacks you automatically rolls their full dice pool and every successes they get is a level of damage. That's alot of damage with a pool of 8 dice(same as you above) an attacker has over a 70% chance of getting two or more successes on you(and this isn't taking into consideration the ten again rule).

Note: I realize you could take ambidexterity to counteract the -2 off hand but that's all your merit dots. And the opposite end is the attacker above having Iron Stamina at 4, thus suffering no penalties as his health is reduced in the battle and Fresh Start, thus allowing him to attack first when your character has a zero defense or force you not to use the two weapon style.

I'm starting to get the impression your GM may not have been applying the rules correctly in both this and the willpower situation.

 

[Midknightsun]

My nWoD-Fu may be rusty, but in response to large calibre guns taking heads off vamps, I believe head shots are considered lethal on them, and so a heavy calibre weapon shot has a pretty good chance of doing just that . . . if you hit their head.

Of course, between celerity, obfuscate, and fortitude, good luck getting the chance if you're a not a supernatural.

I've also never found the WoD system to be slow and clunky . . . especially compared to 3.x (which despite its super slowness, I love). It usually resolves much more quickly.

Different systems, different takes. Both have their charm. Though I am really interested to see Monte's take on this.

 

[DJCupboard]

Can you give some examples of those RPGs? Because I have an easier time thinking of ones where using an active defense doesn't mean you give up your ability to act for a round. Old WoD, Shadowrun (all editions besides 4th), GURPS, Riddle of Steel, the d6 System...

I'm not speaking here out of a delusion of authority, but I remember needing to make the dicision to actively defend OR attack quite frequently when I played oWoD Vampire in High School and Abberant in College, as well as in the smattering of other storyteller games I played in that timeframe.

All that being said, I can't wait until this new version comes out! It will be like when they got their peanut butter in my chocolate.

~Dave~

 

[Imaro]

Can you give some examples of those RPGs? Because I have an easier time thinking of ones where using an active defense doesn't mean you give up your ability to act for a round. Old WoD, Shadowrun (all editions besides 4th), GURPS, Riddle of Steel, the d6 System...

Now let's look at some games that are actually designed for this genre...Unknown Armies, Witchcraft, Seventh Seal, Armageddon, Buffy & Angel. All of them sacrifice your attack actions for a "full defense".

Hehe... It's not a bug, it's actually a feature? It's really a mechanic designed to force people into moral quandries? I think that's... pretty thin.

I really don't see how a system in which you'll almost always get hit if someone fires a gun at you, but that one hit will almost never kill you, represents the horror genre. Or any other genre. Or reality... It's a lousy mechanic that provides results which feel contrived.

No, a lousy mechanic in an rpg would be either
(after 10 min of play)
BANG!...DM:"go roll up another sheet."
BANG!...DM:"You to Bob."
How often does the actual protagonist die in a horror novel...as opposed to being bruised, beaten, tired and scared?


DM:"You guys should be fearful for your lives, desperate to survive, hurting and scared..."
Player:" I ain't scared bring on round 2 I still got 65 hit points left."
Ok how often does the protagonist feel great and keep on truckin after he's faced the horrors in the dark?

Instead nWoD keeps you alive but the fear is through your increasing dice pool penalties due to injury and fatigue. You ain't dead but round two willprobably be worse unless you do whatever it takes to survive. How is this not "morality horror"?

Just aquick note I decided to throw in here after rereading my post: I do not mean, by using the second example that D&D's hit point system is bad...only that I don't think it fits a horror(unless it's action horror) game very well.

 

[mmu1]

I'm not speaking here out of a delusion of authority, but I remember needing to make the dicision to actively defend OR attack quite frequently when I played oWoD Vampire in High School and Abberant in College, as well as in the smattering of other storyteller games I played in that timeframe.

All that being said, I can't wait until this new version comes out! It will be like when they got their peanut butter in my chocolate.

~Dave~

Well... Yes, old WoD would often force you to choose between one or the other, but a competent mundane combat-oriented character usually could decide to split his action and do both (with enough dice left over to make it worthwhile). And once you got into the realm of supernatural critters (which is, after all, the WoD bread and butter) it got relatively commonplace.