Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

V5 Questions Thread

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

  • #91
    Karim posted on Facebook today on the V5 group about the combat system and confusion there. He clarified how the combat works if you're trying to deal with attacking multiple people and dodge.

    Per Karim: Any pool that aims to damage back is subject to the splitting requirement. Any strictly defensive pool uses all of the dice, minus the multiple opponent penalty.

    The example given was:
    * You're fighting one person in close combat with a sword and you have 2 people shooting at you.
    * Karim's Response: Resolve the sword engagement as a two-sided opposed contest (Dex+Melee) while rolling a defense of (Dex+Athletics-1) against the first shooter and (Dex+Athletics-2) versus the second.

    You can also straight use your combat pool to defend and not do damage (so parrying and blocking and such) if you choose.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Marcus View Post
      I guess the point here is just about tastes: you prefer a lighter rule system, after 17 years of STing, other might want more complex system to enjoy the strategy in a combat/social encounter (here I love Requiem 2ed. social system that lead you to interpret and role-play social interaction in a far more complex and diversified ways, rewarding the player for this, even if the system is not so simple).
      But saying that having a more complex rule system does not allow you to create better story seems a weak argumentation to me. Story is a thing, rules are another thing, and decide not to consider them or simplify some rule, it's easier than create them when the system lack these.
      Agree.

      Originally posted by Godforsaken View Post

      I never said that having a more complex rule system does not allow you to create a better story. I am playing Shadowrun since I remember myself, and the game system is quite complex. But I also need to refer to the book for rules clarifications much more often during a session, just because of the sheer amount of rules. is the game fun? yes, of course. But it comes with a price, and in my opinion that price works for Shadowrun, but won't work for Vampire.
      Thing is, we don't really refer the book that much, even during SR. most things are on the character sheet that we would need during the game.

      Also, I never said that I want WoD to be as complex as SR. For me, the old rules were near the perfect spor, as rules-styles go, between complexity and ease of use. They just needed some polishing and clearing of clunkiness. V5, in contrast, is inadequate for my tastes and preferences, with its baebone system.


      If nothing worked, then let's think!

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
        So there's a lot of excluded middle here. PMark and I have significantly different tastes, but there are options besides, "sticking with the old clunky mechanics," and, "justifying V5's half baked ones because they're simple." Asking for a combat system that's fun for people that like combat systems - esp. if there are options for people that don't to resolve such scenes - doesn't really seem like a big ask here.
        Yes, we do and I agree on these things wit you nevertheless. I noticed there is a lot of theis kind of narrative being thrown around, regarding critiques toward V5.

        - Don't like specific changes, or implementation of changes? You are a grognard, who just want to play the old game and don't want anything to change.
        - Don't like the barebones combat with it's illogical parts? You want to play D&D.
        - Don't like how far they went with story elements and how much they changed the setting? You are a grognard (again), and want to play in an eternal '90s.
        - Don't like hunger and Touchstones (I actually like the core idea of both, but I have issues with the complex implemetnation of the first and hate the second as it was written)? You want to play vampions.

        Lots of those false dichotomies, to play down the critiques.


        If nothing worked, then let's think!

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by thebiglarpnerd View Post
          Karim posted on Facebook today on the V5 group about the combat system and confusion there. He clarified how the combat works if you're trying to deal with attacking multiple people and dodge.

          Per Karim: Any pool that aims to damage back is subject to the splitting requirement. Any strictly defensive pool uses all of the dice, minus the multiple opponent penalty.

          The example given was:
          * You're fighting one person in close combat with a sword and you have 2 people shooting at you.
          * Karim's Response: Resolve the sword engagement as a two-sided opposed contest (Dex+Melee) while rolling a defense of (Dex+Athletics-1) against the first shooter and (Dex+Athletics-2) versus the second.
          Hmm, this exclusion of having to split dice pool actually makes dodge somewhat worth to use. Okay, I'd buy this.

          However.

          You can also straight use your combat pool to defend and not do damage (so parrying and blocking and such) if you choose.


          I still firmly believe that having the threefold decision of using your combat skills for defending as:

          a, simply defending, with full pool
          b, defense-counterattacking with a penalty
          c, going full defense with a bonus

          Would have been a lot better, more interesting, with more tactical choices and even more realistic.

          And I still don't like using STR as an attack attribute.

          Also, yes, at least, for Werewolf (but I'd argue, for Mage too) they will have to overhaul this system singificantly, but it'd be best if we would got the final system already in Vampire.

          Last edited by PMárk; 08-09-2018, 07:07 PM.


          If nothing worked, then let's think!

          Comment


          • #95
            The Mawla rules state: "As a general rule, a Mawla group costs one dot more than a single Kindred of that level: a coven of elder Mawali would be a three-dot Mawla group, for example", but i cannot for the life of my actually find a list of these costs that make sense.

            The only one i could even fit onto it, is from the adversaries table, and that conflicts with this information (A Coven of Mawali Elders would be 4 dots, in that case). Whats the answer here?

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Úlfhéðnar View Post
              The Mawla rules state: "As a general rule, a Mawla group costs one dot more than a single Kindred of that level: a coven of elder Mawali would be a three-dot Mawla group, for example", but i cannot for the life of my actually find a list of these costs that make sense.

              The only one i could even fit onto it, is from the adversaries table, and that conflicts with this information (A Coven of Mawali Elders would be 4 dots, in that case). Whats the answer here?

              I err on the side of the main section. So if it talks about the 'level' from the adversaries section, I'd use that. There are a few instances where you can see numbers got changed in primary sections, and things were missed on the references to them during the last pass of editing.

              Comment


              • #97
                Another thing that irks me as an inconsistency: specialties in combat skills.

                With Brawl and Firearms the book states that specific techniques and martial arts or other styles are not allowed in the case of brawl, while in the case of Friearms, it does the same with specific weapon types. The reasoning in it is that it would be too widely applicable.

                My problems:

                1. It wasn't a problem in earlier editions, including both editions of CofD. You paid the price for that one-dice bonus, you should be able to use it.

                2. With melee, it gives sample specialties, including specific weapons, like knives, swords and such. This is contradictory with the other two. Why I'm able to specialize in knife-fighting over other h2h weapons, but unable to specialize using pistols among firearms?


                If nothing worked, then let's think!

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Úlfhéðnar View Post
                  The Mawla rules state: "As a general rule, a Mawla group costs one dot more than a single Kindred of that level: a coven of elder Mawali would be a three-dot Mawla group, for example", but i cannot for the life of my actually find a list of these costs that make sense.

                  The only one i could even fit onto it, is from the adversaries table, and that conflicts with this information (A Coven of Mawali Elders would be 4 dots, in that case). Whats the answer here?
                  The „adversary table“ is actually the Mawla table. So, an elder group would indeed cost 4 dots of background. The example is simply wrong. A group of ancillary would cost 3 dots.

                  All sections first list the flaw associated with the advantage, then list the actual ratings of the advantage. Following that logic, the section adversary is the flaw, while the ratings table lists the advantage: Mawla.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    May be I missed it, but how and from whom thin-blooded learned alchemy?

                    Comment


                    • I was looking at the rules on how to perform simple, conflict and contested tests. I was wondering if the substitution of Hunger Dice for Regular Dice occurs before or after modifiers, specialty, called shot etc. If the substitution occurs before modifiers then when reducing the Dice Pool for negative modifiers and other penalties do you remove regular or hunger dice first? I don't think I saw it in the rules anywhere but I may have missed it.

                      Comment


                      • As far as I understand it, you remove regular Dice before Hunger dice. So if you have Hunger 3 and a 6 base dice pool, you roll 3 Hunger dice and 3 regular dice. If you take -3 penalties to your pool, you roll 3 Hunger dice. If you take an additional -1, you roll 2 Hunger dice because you don't roll more dice than your pool even if your Hunger level exceeds it.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by trueann View Post
                          May be I missed it, but how and from whom thin-blooded learned alchemy?
                          They don't. It's, quite literally, in their blood. Thin-bloods could make their own Disciplines in Revised too, although it was suggested that you crib from rare and Dark Ages Disciplines too.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Godforsaken View Post



                            Listen I understand your points. But from a perspective of someone who is running games for 17 years now, I find this freedom refreshing, and it will allow me to create better stories for my players. In the last six years I was experimenting with games like Numenera, Apocalypse World, and Dungeon World, which are much more light on rules, and stronger on narrative and storytelling, and it worked great for my group. I never had to look for a weapon table to see exactly what dmg a katana does. Is it a medium weapon? great, 4 dmg (Numenera for example). It made my life so much easier. I almost never open the book during Numenera sessions.

                            And I am not talking about chaos here, it's not that it's up to my whims how this armor or this weapon will work, there are guidelines that help you keep it consistent. And V5 has those guidelines, and after reading those guidelines, you as a storyteller have the understanding on how everything works. Right now I can run an entire combat sequence without having the book beside me. I know that weapon damage scales from 0 - 5, I saw the examples so I can take an informed decision on how much damage a chainsaw will do, I know how armor works, and I saw the rules for cover, and how to apply modifiers according to the situation and I am done.

                            I guess you can track ammunition, and create massive tables of different equipment, and each weapon will have different dmg, and different clip size, and different accuracy bonus, and maybe let us add some recoil rules, and weapon mods, and armor piercing, and damage types, and different kinds of protection, and what about gear weight? there's no end to it. A system should give you the basic rules to run it, without the need to refer to the book all the time.

                            But this was easy enough to do before anyway. Weapons were +1 (small/knife), +2 (medium/sword) or +3 (large/broadsword); guns were 4 (small), 6 (medium) or 8 (large). We never bothered with the tables.

                            The point being that with the old rules, you didn't have to look anything up either, unless you really wanted to (that's what the Golden Rule was all about). The Attribute + Ability system was easy enough that you could wing almost anything. But if you wanted more concrete rules, they were there. V5 only has the 'wing it' rules, so you have no choice any more.

                            Comment


                            • Another thing: why desires have to connect to someone on the Relationship map? I get that it is hip indie game design, but what if I want a desire, like "getting a ticket to that concert", or "seducing the girl I've seen last night" that has nothing to do with anyone else, at first, though I might ask for help later, or other members of the coterie might get into it voluntarily, or involuntarily. The rule feels like a forced attempt to narrow down the character's life to the map, to avoid lone wolf syndrome.

                              Also: do Tenets being limited to 3? Honestly, I'd prefer more tenets and convictions too (and convictions not shackled to humans...), like, max 5 would be good, I think. + just seems too small a number to write up either the moreal guidelines for a chronicle, or the complex morals of a person.







                              If nothing worked, then let's think!

                              Comment


                              • Oh and I still don't like they got rid of nature/demeanor. At this point, we have the fourth version of a system for getting back willpower and governing how a character acts. Nature/demeanor, virtue/vice, mask/dirge and aspiration/desire. I admit, from purely the standpoint of handling WP, the new one is good, but I liked nature/demeanor a lot, for how the descriptions helped fleshing out the character, especially for new gamers and how it necessiated really thinking about the character's personality and relationship with the world around it.

                                Could we device a combo system that does both? For example having a nature, with a connected aspiration and a demeanor with a connected desire?

                                Like:

                                Nature: Rebel, Aspiration - wanting to change the local Cam establishment to an Anarch council
                                Demeanor: Bon Vivant, Desire - making it to that killer underground concert later this night.


                                If nothing worked, then let's think!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X