Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is Vampire's developer's problem with Zeus/Jupiter?

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post

    So, if a PC likes the idea of being a battle mage that use his spells in combat following the example of an Al-Ashrad or Ur-Shulgi for instance, perhaps they should have such as a viable option, no?
    No, because risk-reward analysis must always matter. Assuming higher risk should yield higher rewards, and no other means of combat in the entire game assumes higher risk than melee; it's only fair melee yields the highest reward. Meanwhile, blood sorcerers can act in situations in which their targets may not even be aware of their attacker, or in a position to counter-act or even defend themselves, which means their actions are among the lowest-risk in the game.

    Comment


    • #47
      I'm not due if the German translation is different, but while the damage is stated as damage per turn, it's described as setting a fire at a location, not setting someone alight. (V20 and DAV20) and the section of the V20 core on fire state "A character suffers the full damage effect for each turn that she’s in contact with the flames"
      So, if the character gets out of the area of the fire, it stops affecting them. I can't find explicit rules for determining if someone catches fire or not.
      I think it's a bit obvious and thus doesn't even need an explanation, if you get to use creo ignem against someone this person is going to be set aflame and thus suffer damage per turn, until they are able to find a way to douse the flames AND flee the are of effect, because with a level 5 use, for example, an area would be set aflame along with the target. It's a very simple logic. I'm not sure if they teach logic in your country, so that you can learn to concatenate ideas well, but in any case going back to topic if so Al-Ashrad in any game that you're a storyteller would rather flee from any strong and able combatant because even the "mightiest wizard of the world" shouldn't be able to be a match against a physical combatant character lol...I see your point. It's really a wonder then how Ur-Shulgi conjured his "fiery desert wind" to destroy the last caliph of the clan that opposed him, because following you logic he should have fled. LOL!
      Last edited by Herr Meister; 05-08-2019, 10:18 PM.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Theodrim View Post

        No, because risk-reward analysis must always matter. Assuming higher risk should yield higher rewards, and no other means of combat in the entire game assumes higher risk than melee; it's only fair melee yields the highest reward. Meanwhile, blood sorcerers can act in situations in which their targets may not even be aware of their attacker, or in a position to counter-act or even defend themselves, which means their actions are among the lowest-risk in the game.

        You didn't answer my entire post, so I'm sad and still curious about how did your tremere manage to do your tricks. I was really interested in your stories.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
          a player that likes the idea of being a blood mage often complains and many times rightly so, that their characters are never able to stand against a pure physical one in combat
          No offense, but only a Tremere player would complain about not being able to out-physical the physical characters and out-social the social characters while using a mentals-only build.

          Thaumaturgy is not meant to be an "I win" button. If you want to get into combat and do damage, you need Strength and Potence or whatever; if you want to be a social powerhouse, you need Charisma and Presence or the like. Thaumaturgy was never meant to be a replacement for Strength and Potence and Charisma and Presence and everything else.

          Or to put it the other way: if I wanted to play a Ventrue, and complained that my Presence-and-social build could never be a better wizard than the Tremere, would that be a reason to give me a combo-discipline that's "Thaumaturgy but better"?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Draconis View Post

            No offense, but only a Tremere player would complain about not being able to out-physical the physical characters and out-social the social characters while using a mentals-only build.

            Thaumaturgy is not meant to be an "I win" button. If you want to get into combat and do damage, you need Strength and Potence or whatever; if you want to be a social powerhouse, you need Charisma and Presence or the like. Thaumaturgy was never meant to be a replacement for Strength and Potence and Charisma and Presence and everything else.

            Or to put it the other way: if I wanted to play a Ventrue, and complained that my Presence-and-social build could never be a better wizard than the Tremere, would that be a reason to give me a combo-discipline that's "Thaumaturgy but better"?

            I don't know from which world you came (but I guess it's Kindergarten), in any case if you think the only way to deal damage is to punch/swing a sword/shoot a gun in a fantastic setting like the World of Darkness, I guess you're on the wrong thread child.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
              I think it's a bit obvious and thus doesn't even need an explanation, if you get to use creo ignem against someone this person is going to be set aflame and thus suffer damage per turn, until they are able to find a way to douse the flames AND flee the are of effect, because with a level 5 use, for example, an area would be set aflame along with the target.
              I showed my steps of why I think it's not automatically setting someone alight,if you'd like to debate with anything other than "I think it's a bit obvious and thus doesn't even need an explanation," a very counter-logical argument, then perhaps we can have a more meaningful dialogue.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Illithid View Post

                I showed my steps of why I think it's not automatically setting someone alight,if you'd like to debate with anything other than "I think it's a bit obvious and thus doesn't even need an explanation," a very counter-logical argument, then perhaps we can have a more meaningful dialogue.
                I said that and didn't mean to offend you, but it's clearly stated in the book that you can place the flames anywhere in your line of sight using Creo Ignem. It's not a fireball like in d&d. In combat the storyteller may request a Perception + Alertness roll to place it where you want with range also determined by the number of successes. It's not rocket science. So if the said user want to set someone aflame he can do it and the flames cause damage per turn as indicated in the level of the power for as long as he is aflame. What I said is that he is probably not going to douse the flames in a second, unless there's a large body of water nearby etc.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
                  I said that and didn't mean to offend you, but it's clearly stated in the book that you can place the flames anywhere in your line of sight using Creo Ignem. It's not a fireball like in d&d. In combat the storyteller may request a Perception + Alertness roll to place it where you want with range also determined by the number of successes. It's not rocket science. So if the said user want to set someone aflame he can do it and the flames cause damage per turn as indicated in the level of the power for as long as he is aflame. What I said is that he is probably not going to douse the flames in a second, unless there's a large body of water nearby etc.
                  Anywhere in line of sight - yup agree
                  Not a fireball - yup agree
                  Perception Alertness - not in system
                  Originally posted by Page 218 in V20
                  System: The number of successes (Normal willpower roll for Thaumaturgy) determines how accurately the vampire places the flame in his desired location (declared before the roll is made). One success is all that is necessary to conjure a flame in one’s hand, while five successes place a flame anywhere in the Kindred’s line of sight. Less successes mean that the flame appears somewhere at the Storyteller’s discretion — as a rough rule of thumb, the thaumaturge can accurately place a flame within 10 yards or meters of themselves per success.
                  It's not rocket science - More condescending comments, Yay! just after saying that you didn't mean to offend me too
                  So if the said user want to set someone aflame he can do it - Here's the important point on contention I'm discussing though. The power doesn't explicitly say that anyone that is in the conflagration gets "set alight" if they're in it. You say it's obvious, I've just tried to point out that there's no rules on it, so it's variable with each situations.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    ...Perception Alertness - not in system...
                    Yes it is in the system, but only if the storyteller requires it. You can find the information on the page 297 of the V20 Dark Ages Vampire...yes it's obviously variable with each situation, like the user can declare "I want to set Paul aflame" or "I want to set the area where Paul is and try to catch Ringo on fire as well as he's sitting very close to him" or he can also say "I'm gonna try to target the area where the band is and try to catch every member on fire"...and then the storyteller answers the arsonist if those things are possible in the given scene or he can just say that John and George are to cool to catch on fire....

                    In any case I didn't mean to offend you and appreciate any input you have to offer, even though I'm gonna disagree with them.
                    Last edited by Herr Meister; 05-09-2019, 02:44 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Cool, it's in Dark Ages v20. Is that the base book for the system you use, so it can be the first point of reference in the future?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Illithid View Post
                        Cool, it's in Dark Ages v20. Is that the base book for the system you use, so it can be the first point of reference in the future?

                        Yes, it's the base I use as they improved on many aspects of the game, but the soak rule I use is from the second edition basically with the addition of damage types, i.e. bashing/lethal/aggravated but I use the basic soak rules of second edition that fortitudes merely adds to the soak pool( until you get advanced fortitude with 6+ etc), but it's not the only dice you roll to soak aggravated, unless it's from sunlight/fire and true faith. Since revised the setting the game that already favored offensive actions became too much to my likiing as they exponentially increased the possible sources of aggravated damage (specially after the thaumaturgy ritual burning blade that I think really wasn't necesssary for the game, but whatever) and made you roll only fortitude against aggravated a rule.

                        So, all in all I use my own houserules, but the base I use is DAv20.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
                          unless it's from sunlight/fire and true faith. Since revised the setting the game that already favored offensive actions became too much to my likiing as they exponentially increased the possible sources of aggravated damage (specially after the thaumaturgy ritual burning blade that I think really wasn't necesssary for the game, but whatever) and made you roll only fortitude against aggravated a rule.
                          The main game I'm in (DA V20) did almost the opposite for the same problem - too much Agg - Got rid of much of it, claws (and teeth) have armour piercing values instead of agg (Important since we and many of our foes are in Armour much of the time; Burning blade turned in to a variable level ritual that is a bit complex but generally adds some agg on top of normal lethal instead of converting it all to agg. Lure of Flames doesn't exist...
                          Those are the big ones I can think of. Basically Agg is reserved for the Banes of Vampiric existance AND Vampire's don't have them at their disposal without great difficulty

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Illithid View Post
                            The main game I'm in (DA V20) did almost the opposite for the same problem - too much Agg - Got rid of much of it, claws (and teeth) have armour piercing values instead of agg (Important since we and many of our foes are in Armour much of the time; Burning blade turned in to a variable level ritual that is a bit complex but generally adds some agg on top of normal lethal instead of converting it all to agg. Lure of Flames doesn't exist...
                            Those are the big ones I can think of. Basically Agg is reserved for the Banes of Vampiric existance AND Vampire's don't have them at their disposal without great difficulty

                            I also have once thought about removing the concept of aggravated damage from the game with the exception of "Banes of vampiric existance" as well.
                            It's an interesting aproach, though I think I would probably not to to such great lenghts as removing so many powers from the game and so on, specially because when I have to take into consideration the other splats as well, this would be quite a change. So I prefer my current aproach.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
                              I also have once thought about removing the concept of aggravated damage from the game with the exception of "Banes of vampiric existance" as well.
                              It's an interesting aproach, though I think I would probably not to to such great lenghts as removing so many powers from the game and so on, specially because when I have to take into consideration the other splats as well, this would be quite a change. So I prefer my current aproach.
                              It really depends on how true you're also trying to be with the other splats.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post


                                I don't know from which world you came (but I guess it's Kindergarten), in any case if you think the only way to deal damage is to punch/swing a sword/shoot a gun in a fantastic setting like the World of Darkness, I guess you're on the wrong thread child.
                                Yeah, we don't talk to people like this.


                                Onyx Path Forum Moderator
                                Please spare a thought for updating the Exalted wiki.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X