No announcement yet.

V5 new preview is out!!!

This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Did anyone else notice the page markers at the bottom of the Lore Sheets? I figure those have to be a back of the book appendix kinda thing... but it means V5 core's page count is going to be closer to V20 than Revised... so... huh? I thought the V5 core was supposed to be slimmer, and sleeker, so it's easier to both get into, and more function at the table. With the Cam and Anarchs getting books released at the same time... what on Earth does V5 core need with 400 pages (even if they're going with a smaller page dimension) for? Is going to waste page per Clan of just eight figures wearing clothing or something?

    Though... it does have a lot of moments that remind me of old VtM in... not great ways. A whole passage one how no playing "good guys" in Vampire... but example group tenets that are basically, "yeah, we're playing good guys." Good old, "here's tools to play how you want, but doing X is wrong." is back...


    • #47
      Well, that was really not that impressive.The layout is messy, and lacking in focus, the writing frequently dips below that standard which one would expect of a professional product, and the campness... I don't think that the camp aesthetics are intentional, but they are very strange when the writing is trying to be a wholly serious game about vampires.


      • #48
        Well, I'm pretty sure it was going to be disappointing to anyone that wasn't already hyped about the game. It was far more, "See it'll be ready for GenCon," than, "Here, look at all the stuff that'll make you want to switch from older editions."

        It didn't show anything regarding the alpha mechanics that had people worried (combat, Humanity, how strong the Hunger cycle would be and how intrusive things like Compulsions would be, overlap of Willpower and Composure), and previewed a bunch of new concepts without context (Stains, Willpower damage, Bane Severity ratings, Chasse ratings for Domains, Mawla; the last two being non-English words that could mean very different things depending on translation).

        It didn't address the tonal issues people felt between WW's statements, and the vast differences between the two alpha scenarios, because it's tonally inconsistent.

        It didn't clarify a number of setting concerns, and if probably added some more.

        It did show a greater variety of art, but it doesn't really seem to be a positive as there's quite a bit of pieces in just those few pages that don't seem to serve much purpose.


        • #49
          Originally posted by Eldagusto View Post
          Ohh so they have been careful with the rules they release news about, interesting maybe there is hope. I know I wasn't pleased with what I heard about the Hunger rules, and blood dice.
          Sounded like Vampires would be crippled in comparison to nonvampires due to constant hunger.
          I would like to have hope too but all non pasive discipline levels have the 1 rouse of blood cost from hunger dice mechanics so I don´t think they will go back to the old vitae system

          PD:At least we can always Ignore the hungers dices and pick the rules we find interesting into our V20 games.

          Hunger pool


          • #50
            Originally posted by PMárk View Post
            "What most appropriate for the narrative" is just not the style of game I prefer.
            Too true. That style works well in television and movies, not so well in games of any sort, not just table top.

            "At the risk of sounding like a murder hobo"

            Attributed to Nyrufa.


            • #51
              The big problem at the moment is just humanity.

              A few changes would satisfy me. Declare that many of the changes are only contingent upon some false gehenna event. Completely remove the touchstone and declare that the current model of humanity is the basic morality of the newly embraced but that later, vampires tend to migrate to other models of morality (remembering the ways of Dark Ages). That would be convenient because it would not have to describe any path in this book and we would have the scenario open for expansion.


              • #52
                I can't say the spread made me want to play a Toreador (the Brujah one did the trick this time), but surely gave me some inspiration for Toreador antagonists in a chronicle.
                See, that's part of why the Toreador section was a perfect storm of blah for me though. Off putting stylistic changes on the one hand, but also combined with mechanical changes to their clan curse that don't come off as doing much but reinforcing the old stereotype/insult of the Toreador being flighty and useless (because again, how are they not being hit with a penalty to all of something as basic as using their powers, pretty much near always? Also they still seem to have some piece of the go enrapt part of their curse ontop of it. Did.. did the person writing that just really dislike the clan or something?), which makes the whole triumphalist tone of their material and Carmelita's little bit feel in fact jarringly contradictory. Like whoever wrote their curse and whoever the text were two different people, who were not in communication with each other.

                It feels like a bunch of things that have been exasperating me about v5 (schlocky approach to things, punitive rule choices that seem to just punish you for all of playing the game) managed to come together in one section. It's why it stood out.

                Also the idea of a spread for a central clan being depicted as a core player option in the corebook should in fact make you want to play that clan in some way. That's its job. If it can't manage that, it's kinda failing at its job.
                Last edited by MarkK; 06-29-2018, 09:10 AM.


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
                  Did anyone else notice the page markers at the bottom of the Lore Sheets?
                  It has been said that it will sport about 400 pages.
                  Given the rather spacious design, which does show in the Toreador example, I can see how that may happen without dropping to much text.


                  • #54
                    Anyone happy seeing Rachel Dolium's Writing once more?
                    Last edited by Nicolas Milioni; 06-29-2018, 09:17 AM.


                    • #55
                      I'm still not too much of a fan of the hunger idea even after using one basic ability, I might drop it if I run a game. I found the fashion part amusing just for the fact that it explains why Vampires like to wear black and not just for the series' goth roots.

                      See my splat, Angel: The Revelation (With a MUCH better link):


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Ben Linus View Post
                        The big problem at the moment is just humanity.

                        A few changes would satisfy me. Declare that many of the changes are only contingent upon some false gehenna event. Completely remove the touchstone and declare that the current model of humanity is the basic morality of the newly embraced but that later, vampires tend to migrate to other models of morality (remembering the ways of Dark Ages). That would be convenient because it would not have to describe any path in this book and we would have the scenario open for expansion.
                        It's a 20 page advance look that has managed the clever trick of making me already wish for an errata (something that makes touchstones less necessary, and just... something for that clan curse) that I know all the same the odds of getting are sweepingly unlikely. I have to look at that sort of thing and find my expectations further lowered in a "man, if that's what came up in 20 pages for problems, I can't even imagine what's going to come up in 400." And that itself is without getting into other choices I found just weird (a game that talks about "going back to the old spirit of vampire" apparently put the Week of Nightmares back in? What? What do you really get out of blowing up the Ravnos clan like that?*) But, this is the book they want to do, it's done, and the people they're leaning to as their preferred audience with it will, I'm sure, enjoy it fine.

                        *I actually really rather liked the revised era of the game for the record, it doesn't mean I liked every single choice they made.
                        Last edited by MarkK; 06-29-2018, 09:23 AM.


                        • #57
                          I believe that a few lines solve the problem.

                          Convictions already support mankind alone, so it would suffice to say that touchstones are optional. And that this humanity is the morality that the members enter into non-life, but that this can change as time passes. Finally, to say that the most drastic changes on "being a vampire" like hunger are contingent on some event (as they did to justify the change from domination to dementia in modern Malkavians).

                          Failure to release these fixes runs the risk of the publisher alienating even more fans, rather than using the add-ons to bring the elements that fans like.


                          • #58
                            So it wasn't perfect. There were some interesting things and some lacklustre things. It certainly wasn't horrifying, though. I'll still buy the main book and give it a read. It's certainly an ambitious overhaul, though I think it'll appeal more to new players rather than old ones.

                            The clan write-ups were snoresville, and as others have noted, the Toreador weakness completely undermines the write-up. I just didn't like them.

                            The fashion section was better than expected. The Concepts section was a bit limp compared to serious editions' very brief but effective descriptions of what Gothic Punk means.

                            Touchstones are a huge turn-off for me. They always have to be humans? Really? I also dislike the irony of telling us we're not playing heroes, then railroading us into playing heroes in the mechanics. The only humans in Vampire should be food, slaves, puppets or enemies. Having PCs pine over relatives and strangers just feels like a completely different game to me. It feels like Wraith, which I love, but for very different reasons.

                            Loresheets might be interesting. I'll see how it pans out.

                            Celerity is . . . okay. It's in-keeping with the fiction (Dracula could climb walls like a gecko, Anne Rice has her vampires make works of art at super-speed and it does appear in movies). It's not really a combat Discipline any more. Doing away with free actions is certainly the preference for some, but I would have at least kept the Dexterity boost or the option of running super-fast from V20.

                            Perhaps a Shadowrun-style of initiative would work better with Celerity? In that, some characters get more than one action each turn, but the action economy isn't broken.

                            The main problem with Celerity is a) it takes too long, and b) attacks are usually better than defence in the rules, so it's OP. That can be fixed, however, if you address each of those issues. As I understand it from the Alpha (this may have changed), combat now seems to be resolved as a contested action (both parties roll). That resolves the imbalance between attack/defence somewhat. So that means the only other issue is time.

                            There are a few ways to fix the time issue. Perhaps you could make one attack roll and either apply it to multiple opponents, or perhaps divide the successes between everyone in a certain radius that increases with your Celerity rating? That way you eliminate the need for one player to hog all the gaming time.

                            There appear to be lots of new concepts in the game. For something that otherwise feels rules-light, I'm not sure this makes sense. Each rule is less well defined, but now there are more of them? But it'll be easy enough to hack.

                            From what I can see, 'Chasse' means 'hunting', so in this context might relate to the hunting capacity of a domain? See here:

                            Mawla is an Arabic word that denotes a reciprocal relationship, so it roughly means anything from 'master' to 'slave/freedman' to 'patron/client' to 'uncle/nephew'. Older uses seem to refer to slaves. It might be a measure of social influence/relationships that is somehow distinct from the vaulderie. Or it might be a new term for one's contacts or even your coterie. Or it could refer to your herd. It definitely needs some clarification. See here:

                            From what I've seen, I think I'll mainly use it for setting info. That should be easy enough (for example, one Rouse = one Blood Point). It's not quite a disaster, though; it just seems a tad . . . ill considered to overhaul all the rules in such a way that it also changes the flavour of the game. But maybe they've done hundreds of playtests and everyone else loved it, so who am I to judge? I'm glad I only pre-ordered the core book. (I'm a Sabbat fan anyway.)
                            Last edited by adambeyoncelowe; 06-29-2018, 10:18 AM.


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by MarkK View Post
                              Also the idea of a spread for a central clan being depicted as a core player option in the corebook should in fact make you want to play that clan in some way. That's its job. If it can't manage that, it's kinda failing at its job.
                              I totally agree with you in this.
                              It might be my taste maybe. I mean, why I'm not so prone to play a sadistic Toreador while I think I'd have fun playing a sadistic Tzimisce? Is it because it's a more cartoonish and so less disturbing kind of sadism?
                              Anyway, I agree with you. It fails. At least with me.
                              Still I see it as sort of an improvement for a clan that I've never seen played in my personal experience (I mostly played in revised era years) and most people I know never cared much.
                              In the context of the super-uber-conspiracy paranoia idea that a piece of the preview wants to deliver... I think this approach for the Toreador fits well.
                              Obviously it's much different from the past and so it's reasonable that many fans will dislike.

                              My main dislike is still touchstones. Why dammit? Convinctions are such a good idea, a flexible way to create any kind of character with any kind of personal moral compass. Why forcing touchstones and deciding you lose one you also lose a convinction? Why? Bah...

                              Also it was a good idea IMHO to change the toreador curse, but it sounds really really too punishing now. Wouldn't "very ugly" instead of "less than beautiful" a better choice? After all WoD is not a beautiful place.
                              Was the disciplines combination of Toreador considered too strong? (I honestly think it is very strong)

                              Anyway there's a lot of stuff I liked in this preview and I'm hyped. Can't wait to have the book.

                              101 simple plot ideas for VtM


                              • #60
                                So, my in-depth assesment of Celerity, from the V5 preview, after giving it a second and third (and fourth) read:

                                Level 1

                                Cat's grace: a thematically fitting power at first level, but I dislike the narrative-game design of all or nothing. Really, you don't have to make any rolls for keeping balance, like, never? Or, if you must (slippery surface, etc.), then it does nothing? I'd have preferred a plain simple bonus for checks and maybe the caveat, that you don't have to roll, dunno, under diff 2-3, at all.

                                Rapid reflexes: It's okay, but I'd make it to ignore multiple opponents too (or make that as an effect of a higher level power, at level 2 or 3).

                                Level 2

                                Fleetness: Also okay, except the fact, that it is only to be used deffensively, in combat. My solution would be to simply add dices, equal to your level and you can distribute it between your attack and defense roll as you want in that round. That would give a lot mroe tactical choices into the hands of the player and we won't be in two levels deep in Celerity without any offensive capabilities... and why, on dear Earth it is only for dodging, but not for parrying, or blocking? You could do super-awesome kung-fu dodges, like Neo, but you can't utilize your speed with a simple plain parry with a sword? Come on, it really pisses me off, it's so illogical.

                                Level 3

                                Blink: Okay, but I'm not sure how it works in relation with initiative. I also dislike how flippant they are in the text, talking about distances. Like, if you'd be wrong to want consistency in the game, instead of "narrative appropriateness"). Woe you, you wargamer, you, it's not D&D, silly. Meh.

                                Traversal: mostly okay, but could be written a bit more clearly, but all-in-all, okay.

                                Level 4

                                Draught of elegance: ok, it's okay, but if it is a Celerity-only power, why you're only able to share this discipline? Or, alternatively, Every discipline has the equivalent? It makes no sense to be able to share super-speed, but not super-strength, or hardiness.

                                Unnerring aim: why are we getting a power for shooting earlier than for melee? On the other hand, it makes sense that it is an amalgam power (a new name for combo disciplines?). What I really-really dislike about this and the next level's power, is the "all, or nothing" approach to it. Like, it completely shuts down the defender's defense and makes it almost assuredly one-shot-one-kill, making it waaay overpowered, or, if the opponent has Cel 5 and is rousing, it does absolutely nothing. Why can't it give you a dice bonus, penalties for the defender, an extra attack, or something that's not that binary? I'm also very wary how it'll work against other supnats' powers, like Rage or Time magick. Or, against, Vampires with even higher Celerity (6+)? It measn that potentially, two of Celerity's combat effects would do nothing against the foes it'd be needed the most...

                                Level 5

                                Lightning strike: so, we had to wait for the highest level, for an actual power boosting melee capabilities, but we finally got it, yeay! In a nutshell, I have the same problems, I had with the previous one, it's either overkill, or does nothing, etc. honestly, I don't even get why it is a higher-level one? I'd have rolled it into the 4th level power adn would made them, again, less binary.
                                In my mind, the fifth level combat power would have been something like automatically jumping to the first aplce in the inititative roster for that turn (making the power being usable at the beginning of the turn, before anyone acted), or along those lines. Or tie it up with the next one, see below.

                                Split second: so, a power, which gives a player ability to everride the ST, but it's ultimately in the hands of ST fiat. Hmmm, I'm not sure I like it thsi way, it's too nebulous, could be too strong, if the ST is forgiving, or very underpowered, if she's a harsh one, or don't like constant meddling. Still, it's a reasonable power, but I might roll into it the combat ability too, in the following way:

                                I don't know if it has changed, since the alpha, but i disliked how "whoever rolls higher does damage" in combat. I believe, based on martial arts experience, that it's not how it works, that a simple defense roll would be better and that defense-counterattack should be an 'option' with a penalty. Now Split second (essentially precognition) could make it like the alpha baseline, eliminating that penalty, menaing, that you're always making the perfect parry-riposte in one tempo (meaning, with one-movement techniques, in the same time, instead of parrying and riposting in two). That, combined with my earlier approach to Fleetness (ie, that you could distribute the extra dices between attack and defense as you like) and my suggestion for rapid reflexes (ie. cancelling out the penalties for multiple opponents) would make it a very strong and thematically fittin power under precognition.

                                Essentially, you would be the master Toreador swordsman, standing in a circle of Anarch thugs, defending Elysium with your blade, making only the perfect moves and eliminating your opponents in the middle of their attacks, while barely making a step, almost like if you're seeing into the future and knowing what they'll do and choosing the perfect counter (because essentially, you're doing just like that). That would be rad as hell, IMO.
                                Mechanically, rapid reflexes would be passive (not getting penalties from multiple opponents), you'd activate Fleetness and pumping all five dices into defense and also activate Split Second for counter-attacking without penality. You'd make a spectacular massacre by simply defending.Yes, it'd be strong, but it would take two rouses and it's a fifth-level power.

                                That is my assesment. It's really a mixed bag, Some of the powers are good, but I'd have took different approaches with half of them, really.

                                If nothing worked, then let's think!