Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paths and the Sabbat in 5e

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nosimplehiway
    replied
    Originally posted by Elthanes View Post
    How is mechanically abstracting the bloodpool into Hunger levels something that would in any way effect the background of the setting?
    Well, for one thing, the setting of VtM includes ancient powerful elders with massive bloodpools... I think Angry Blood Gods is the usual description.

    Except, with the Hunger system, every vampire from the lowliest Caitiff straight up to urShulgi and Ennoia get hungry at the same rate, and roughly as often. And it happens, at random, during other, sometimes unrelated activity. So, the lowly Caitiff might fight off a dozen Garou with nothing but a silver butter knife, and, through very, very lucky dice rolling, not even be a little peckish. Meanwhile, Baba Yaga could get famished just from working really hard at doing a crossword puzzle, if the dice fall wrong.

    The Angry Blood Gods have fallen.
    Last edited by Nosimplehiway; 05-15-2018, 05:41 PM. Reason: fixed minor tipyng erors

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Linus
    replied
    It's because in the Fifth Edition rule a vampire does not fall for the use of blood and becomes more subject to destruction, he only falls into short-term frenzy and has a price to pay in the long run. So how to explain the destruction of Ravnos in this context? For example. This type of rule could change the outcome of several direct combos in WoD.

    But understand me well, I am not against this rule, I like it (I do not like it is the new rule of humanity). But I think it has a retroactive impact as far as changing a discipline from a clan in my opinion. But it is a well-made rule with a lot of dramatic potential (as opposed to the new rule of humanity that kills the excellent system of formal religions that we had before).

    Leave a comment:


  • Elthanes
    replied
    How is mechanically abstracting the bloodpool into Hunger levels something that would in any way effect the background of the setting?

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Linus
    replied
    Darking Skies returned after a cancellation. And the Dark Ages line was okay, just lacking more supplements, I do not think I need a review after the V20 Dark Ages and bring all those elements back or sacrifice some. And that is better than nomadic members.

    And it will not be a good review if the Paths, something that is necessary for that social structure to be sacrificed in the name of a limiting system that does not dialogue with what was built before, does not bring something new back to the scenario, only demolishing what was previously built.

    On the Gangrel, you are quoting a rare and secondary option to the scenario that was never really addressed by the metaplot and saying that it has a greater impact than restructuring any vampire's vitae and starvation system. What would be a revision of the same proportion would be to say that the Camarilla Malkavians always had Dementia, but not White Wolf justified a mystical change not to invalidate the previous metaplot.

    The fictions need a retroactive change that justify the mechanical changes or the lack of dialogue with the previous rules but makes them incoherent.
    Last edited by Ben Linus; 05-15-2018, 11:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teylen
    replied
    Originally posted by Ben Linus View Post
    That would make most of the canon stop making sense and would make the idea of a cheap gehenna to have happened before the V5.
    I don't see how an approach, in regards to the Hunger circle, in which they say:
    "It has always been like this, but wasn't addressed.
    The focus of the stories have had been placed differently, the characters just didn't mention it or weren't busy with it."
    Would invalidate the canon as is.
    You could continue to either write stories within the setting as it has been before.
    You could as well write stories that does take newly introduced elements into account.

    Next to the aspect that there had been bigger changes. Like when the setting went from "Gangrel can disguise within Werewolves and buddy up" (2nd) towards "Vampire and Werewolves are on a kill-on-sight relationship status and no way a Gangrel could hide in a pack" (2nd rev). Which is imho a bigger change than the Hunger circle.
    But the most worrying thing is that it would completely kill the already crumbling interesting projects like Brujah Chronicles or A Lonely Road
    I might be missing something, but the Brujah Chronicles is a scenario book that got abandoned in 2004?
    I don't see any reasonable cause to pine for projects that are dead for more than a decade.

    They could do an interesting, cool Brujah chronicle or source books about nomadic kindred?
    It further disturbs the idea of releasing transitional fictions from the fourth to the fifth edition which would be a golden egg hen for publisher.
    You can publish almost all the fiction that you want on the storytellers vault.
    A licensed publisher could publish a lot of engaging fiction set in the metaplot?
    Which apparently has stuff coming like the formation of a second inquisition, a Ghenna war, an upturned power structure and more.

    Leave a comment:


  • Coridan
    replied
    Exactly, D&D 3.5 to 4th was more akin to VtM revised to VtR. This is more like 3.5 to 5e

    Leave a comment:


  • Monalfie
    replied
    Originally posted by Teylen View Post
    I don't think it is a good example.
    D&D looks and plays quite differently between all editions.
    There are significant shifts between 1E edition and 3E edition, between 3E and 3.5E and between 3E and 5E.
    The only difference that 4E makes was that there has been a more significant uproar to the changes.
    I don't agree. I can only speak as to the editions I've played, but having gone from playing 3.5, to 4e, to 5e (with a little Pathfinder)? 4e feels much more of a shift in how you are to play compared to the others. Not to deny there aren't serious adjustments between editions otherwise (no question that 3.5 does differ from 5e), but I don't think it fair to say they are all equivalent.

    There is no scenario that I can see or imagine in which V5 wouldn't create a split.
    There'll always be people that see any change that derivatives from the Onyx Path releases as heresy.
    Yet, there are ways to mitigate such a split. If they had gone from 3.5 straight to what 5e is? A lot less players end up disenfranchised.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Linus
    replied
    Originally posted by Teylen View Post



    I would assume that it is retconned along the line of "it has always been like this but wasn't addressed" and I assume that further down the line a VDA5 line might be found.

    I hope that does not happen. That would make most of the canon stop making sense and would make the idea of a cheap gehenna to have happened before the V5.

    But the most worrying thing is that it would completely kill the already crumbling interesting projects like Brujah Chronicles or A Lonely Road, there is someday. Hell, that may even make it impossible for more groups of Mage to be introduced with Ancient Magic as was done with the Itajarana, which I would like to see with the Taftanni, for example.

    It further disturbs the idea of releasing transitional fictions from the fourth to the fifth edition which would be a golden egg hen for publisher.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teylen
    replied
    Originally posted by Illithid View Post
    In fact specifically the big change from 3/3.5 into 4 was such a significant shift; on scale to this V5 change that it is a good example to bring up.
    I don't think it is a good example.
    D&D looks and plays quite differently between all editions.
    There are significant shifts between 1E edition and 3E edition, between 3E and 3.5E and between 3E and 5E.
    The only difference that 4E makes was that there has been a more significant uproar to the changes.

    Thus if going for a comparison I would state that V5 appears quite normal in the line, like the D&D edition changes without 4E and that if there is a comparison to the WoD 4E would be more of an equivalent to the new World of Darkness/Chronicles of Darkness .

    I would prefer to see a V5 that doesn't create a split like D&D did
    There is no scenario that I can see or imagine in which V5 wouldn't create a split.
    There'll always be people that see any change that derivatives from the Onyx Path releases as heresy.
    Which, to a certain degree, is normal. It happened between 1st to 3rd edition in smaller scale it does with the 20th products. (I myself am not likely to drop my resentments towards VDA20).
    It happens.

    Originally posted by Ben Linus View Post
    But a question, but new scene mechanics such as the new hunger system come back in a retroactive fashion, preventing a continuation of Dark Ages without a gigantic review or are they created a mystical event?
    I would assume that it is retconned along the line of "it has always been like this but wasn't addressed" and I assume that further down the line a VDA5 line might be found.

    Leave a comment:


  • Murder-of-Crows
    replied
    Originally posted by Illithid View Post
    These are the exact reasons that I have a problem with what I have seen so far. I would prefer to see a V5 that doesn't create a split like D&D did, making people choose between V5 and Vampire's version of Pathfinder that Onyx path releases. I mean, it's good for the developers working for Onyx Path I suppose, but we've already got a significant split in "Vampire" Player base between Requiem and Masquerade.
    I am really looking forward to seeing what Kenneth Hite and his team have come up with as final rules. So far, every edition of Vampire had minor rules shifts while still being mostly compatible. Kind of like D&D, AD&D and AD&D 2nd Edition. Those systems became dated enough for D&D 3 to make some new and interesting design decisions, but still maintaining a familiar and somewhat compatible game. D&D 4 was a major shift in the paradigm that has since been discarded in favor of D&D 5 which seems to have a huge player base. In fact, it's called "everybody's second favorite D&D".

    In terms of Vampire, Requiem was the big shift in paradigm. Less so rules-wise, but the setting was a huge shift while the rules system was still recognizable. Now, V5 goes back to the original setting, still being d10 based, still having attributes, abilities/skills, and five levels of basic disciplines. Everything seems to be pretty much compatible up to this point. So I guess, depending on your preferences, you can easily take the updated setting and plug it into the V20 rules set, or you can take the updated V5 rules and use them with previous editions' fluff. Okay, some parts will be rolled-out later.

    But in the end, we'll get something much need to attract new gamers: an updated rules system that is not hopelessly mire in 25 year old design paradigms, and a renewed presences in (online) stores other than DriveThru - thus raising awareness of the game. So, in the end, I can see a growing playerbase. Which would be a huge bonus. Vampire still offers a completely different game experience than D&D, Pathfinder, Numenera or Shadowrun. Something that is sorely missing in today's relevant RPGs,

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Linus
    replied
    To be honest I think I still had fourth edition material to be released before V5.

    But a question, but new scene mechanics such as the new hunger system come back in a retroactive fashion, preventing a continuation of Dark Ages without a gigantic review or are they created a mystical event?
    Last edited by Ben Linus; 05-14-2018, 10:22 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Illithid
    replied
    Originally posted by Teylen View Post
    Given that D&D changed quite a lot (*) I would sense a notion of sarcasm in the statement.

    (*) Alignment changed from law/neutrality/chaos to a two dimensional thing and got somewhat downplayed in D&D 5E
    The first edition has had quite a different concept of races and classes, which weren't as distinct
    Things like the monk weren't in first edition and multi-classing changed a bit.
    The recent edition doesn't let you play an oathbreaker Paladin from the PHB get go.
    They got story gamey stuff like the advantage system.
    The feat-stuff came and went and transformed.
    (which are just the things I can name, and I barely play D&D)
    Yes D&D changed a lot, First edition had "Elf" and "Dwarf" as a class next to "Cleric" But they also split things with D&D and AD&D as different systems.

    In fact specifically the big change from 3/3.5 into 4 was such a significant shift; on scale to this V5 change that it is a good example to bring up.

    Lots of people got really annoyed at the changes. You couldn't continue what you used to play in a lot of cases (but it had better tools for extending the kind of things missing) but so much was unable to be translated that people stuck with the old edition, and then Pathfinder came along
    Pathfinder (Correct me if i'm wrong) spiritually called D&D 3.75, took off as a massive expansion/ game system in competition for D&D 4 and now D&D 5. All because people liked the evolution of the 3rd edition of the rules and not the 4th edition.

    These are the exact reasons that I have a problem with what I have seen so far. I would prefer to see a V5 that doesn't create a split like D&D did, making people choose between V5 and Vampire's version of Pathfinder that Onyx path releases. I mean, it's good for the developers working for Onyx Path I suppose, but we've already got a significant split in "Vampire" Player base between Requiem and Masquerade.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Linus
    replied
    I believe that the system of humanity and touchstones is a huge involution for the scenario, since finally we would have the opportunity to adopt the benefits and evolutions that the scene Dark Ages and V20 Dark Ages brought like the third edition took advantage of what to Vampire Dark Ages second edition brought. The System of Paths as formal religions and with social structures was an immense evolution for the scenario that not only cohered it gave an interesting flavor and complexity. Replacing this with a cheap system of touchstones that serve as a thematic limitation rather than giving depth to the scenario is a regression.

    Having said that, the publisher has the opportunity to change the conventional structures of Camarilla and Sabá, it would be interesting to follow this to have some notion that something that can be compared miniminamente with Gehenna happened. And in that aspect if the Sabbat exists, it should be in the main book.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teylen
    replied
    Originally posted by Nosimplehiway View Post
    You're right. The Pathfinder/D&D4 transition went smoothly, so we're probably worried about nothing.
    Given that D&D changed quite a lot (*) I would sense a notion of sarcasm in the statement.

    (*) Alignment changed from law/neutrality/chaos to a two dimensional thing and got somewhat downplayed in D&D 5E
    The first edition has had quite a different concept of races and classes, which weren't as distinct
    Things like the monk weren't in first edition and multi-classing changed a bit.
    The recent edition doesn't let you play an oathbreaker Paladin from the PHB get go.
    They got story gamey stuff like the advantage system.
    The feat-stuff came and went and transformed.
    (which are just the things I can name, and I barely play D&D)

    Leave a comment:


  • Nosimplehiway
    replied
    Originally posted by Coridan View Post
    Have you guys complaining ever gone through an edition change in other games? D&D doesn't update all their classes and races in the core book and frequently change what's core and what isn't
    You're right. The Pathfinder/D&D4 transition went smoothly, so we're probably worried about nothing.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X