Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How come Vampires always used as a punching bag within the WOD?!

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

  • How come Vampires always used as a punching bag within the WOD?!

    It feels like vampires have become something of a running joke within the WOD game lines, whenever I read a post that talks about vampires going against the other splats, almost everyone in the comment section simultaneously goes "The vampire dies because 'Insert splat' is too strong". I have even read books which open with the main splat absolutely demolishing the vampire in question, no matter who it is. Yet I have never seen something like that happen in a vampire book. And when people do bring up the one thing vampires are supposed to have a lot of, which is their immense political and criminal influence within cities, I immediately begin to doubt that. Mostly due to how multiple books have already gone over how many of the other splats also have immense criminal and political influence within cities as well, and maybe other areas such as the umbra.

    The werewolves have the Silver fangs and the Shadow lords who seem to have kinfolk in different positions in multiple organizations, both legal and illegal. The bone gnawers seem to have immense influence among the poor, plus the glass walkers seem to have mastery of technology, and lets not forget about the other tribes and fera. Mages have the technocracy, and no doubt the traditions and crafts also have influence within both legal and illegal organizations. Demons have their cults, some of which have immense influence within the city they are located in. Witch hunters and the imbued seem to have some sort of organization behind them such as the Society of Leopold. I could write more but you all probably see where I'm going with this.

    A lot of times a vampires influence doesn't seem to even help. Who cares if that venture elder controls a City Hall? Nothings stopping a werewolf from jumping out of the umbra and setting them on fire, nothings stopping a mage from using coincidental magic to do the same thing, nothing stopping the society of Leopold from doing a drive by in public. Seeing as how vampires are hated by practically everything in the world of darkness, I am legitimately surprised that the denizens of the umbra, such as spirits and wraiths, haven't jumped out and started demolishing every haven.

    It doesn't even make sense why they are the most hated.

    The two other main splats are just as bad as vampires. The Technocracy and other magic factions really want control/freedom to do whatever they want at the end of the day and so do the werewolves and their tribes. This isn't so dissimilar to what vampires want. But for some reason a vampire is always going to be seen as the bigger evil, just because their "damned". Whats that suppose to even mean? They're damned because they drink blood? Hell, the amount of blood a vampire needs night to night doesn't seem like that big of an issue, as long as they have a bit of restraint they can leave their prey alive and go on their merry way. They're undead, so that makes them perversions against the natural order? Well mages can, and have become immortal in more ways than one, and have been known to manipulate reality to their whims. Werewolves are creatures that have a human body but an animals souls (simplification, but you get what I am trying to say), and have at one point in time tried to limit/exterminate humanity and have exterminated multiple fera who had important duties. They can turn others into vampires? Most don't want the competition. The ones who recklessly do are usually destroyed.
    Last edited by Hello; 06-17-2022, 12:09 AM.

  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    I'll put up some data we can actually access:

    Onyx Path Kickstarters/etc. don't really indicate a significant difference between the WoD or the CofD (or Exalted, or Storypath, or D&D 5e based books); including their V5 books.

    There's a core group that pretty much backs every project they do (yay backer credits pages!), and significant group that backs a lot of projects but is slightly more selective (their names are on all the d10 based games but not the d20 based games for example), and then more specific fans. They all sell, and they all sell pretty close to each other in terms of how many people back them (the X20 books tend to get higher pledge amounts, but for higher baseline priced giant tome core books, and those regularly get beaten by Exalted even after the Exalted 3e core book fiasco).

    The only difference now, is that the WoD has Paradox's large scale financial support to try to build it up as a major RPG IP again, while the other games are left to the limited reach Onyx Path has managed to establish for itself.

    The WoD has its strengths, the CofD has its strengths. They both appeal to new people in different ways because that's actually a good thing, not proof about one being better than the other.

    The reason I brought up the CofD was that it was built in direct reaction to where the WoD was in 2003... and a lot of the problems the CofD was meant to address on the mechanical side of things are also being shown to be present in the WoD5 books now that we have the H5 pdf out to pre-orderers to see what the games are going to look like over more than just V5.

    One of the problems is that the WoD is not "each splat has its own themes and cosmology," because the WoD does crossover and thus each game doesn't actually exist in a vacuum. It exists in a Schrodinger's Box of uncertainty (which is to say, the thought experiment is silly, because we actually know the answer without opening the box: but some people are going to insist we need to open it anyway). I think people forgot how much the WoD has struggled with it's non-committal stance over the editions, and tend to assume a version of the WoD that fits their personal tastes over what the books have actually presented over the years.

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
    The disadvantage of CoD is that it’s somewhat all or nothing; if the unifying cosmology of it appeals to you it allows easy crossovers. If it doesn’t then you’ll skip the whole thing because everything will just feel poorly fitted.
    That's definitely not true. It may be your feel with it, and it is valid as such, but that's not in any way how CoD works.

    Each gameline there is just as complex and thematic, and it is meant to be crossover friendly, not crossover focused. Most chronicles have no crossover at all, and my current impression is that crossovers actually happen far more in WoD than in CoD.

    What happens there is less of a unified cosmology and more of a policy of non-contradiction: no splat should need another to be wrong to work at all. That's hardly a "be all things for all splats" vs "each has themes and cosmology" situation. This is an ignorant comparison.

    Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
    By contrast the heavy Gnosticism (which I consider a joke of a philosophy) and attendant cosmology so turned me off from Awakening that I have never had any interest in the nWoD/CoD setting.
    How can you correctly describe a setting you admittedly has no interest on?

    Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
    In general, I think the strong individual themes of the WoD splats are more likely to capture someone’s interest than the lukewarm unifying cosmology of CoD will… the fact that we’re discussing this in relation to Masquerade which was supposed to have been utterly replaced by the supposedly superior approach in CoD almost two decades ago speaks to the value of stronger and more thematic settings I think.
    You think wrong. It is valid to talk about your own preference, another thing to compare two distinct games without any hard data on which is better received, ignoring the other contextual distinctions between them and in a forum dedicated to one of them, specially when there is an active forum for the other in the same site, full of fans and supporters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris24601
    replied
    So, in keeping with my comments above about streamlining combat, here are a couple of relevant baselines that might help in making your own adjustments.

    - At difficulty six, a die will succeed slightly under half the time (there's an odd inversion around four dice where you will score slightly more than half the dice rolled; 2.1 successes... but the overall range is roughly 0.45 per die to 0.42 per die within the 5-10 dice range). For ease of streamlining "take half" is probably close enough within most normal dice pool ranges.

    - A point reduction or increase in difficulty within the 4-8 range adds or subtracts about 0.1 per die from the successes scored (i.e. 5 dice at difficulty 5 will score about 0.5 more successes than 5 dice at difficulty 6). With small pools this is generally a rounding error, but at 5 dice and above (where most combat capable characters tend to fall) it will matter about half the time when you're rounding (it'll take 2.5 to 3, or 3 to 3.5... depending on how you round (up, down, closest) that might matter).

    - Specialization within the range of difficulty 4-8 adds about 0.1 successes scored per die (i.e. 5 dice with a specialization will score about 0.5 successes more than 5 dice without a specialization). Since specialization requires a minimum of 4 dots in something, the pools will almost always be in the range where it will add at least half a success to the outcome and so probably shouldn't just be ignored.

    - Extra successes on attacks only add an extra die to the damage roll each, which when rolled will only succeed half the time... so in effect, each extra success to hit adds only 0.5 successes to damage (give or take). This is important if you're wanting to streamline the damage/soak side of the equation. This also means that something which turns dice into automatic successes should only add HALF their value in extra successes as the other half has already been accounted for (Str 3 + Potence 3 used normally in V20 is 6 dice or a "take half" of 3. Spending blood would change the value to 4.5... 3 for full Potence successes + 1.5 for "take half" of the Strength 3... how you decide to round would determine if that's going to be a 4 or a 5).

    * * * *

    So, if you want to take things down to a single roll, you might use the following example; Attacker has Str 3, Dex 3, Melee 3 and is using a sword +3 damage. The defender has Dex 3, Athletics 3 and a Lethal Soak of 3. Let's say you round Soak up and Damage results down just to favor the defender slightly (you could do the opposite if you wanted a more lethal outcome).

    You set the damage as 3+1/2 successes. The target's Defense is 3 (subtract three successes from the attacker's result) and Soak is 2 (1.5 rounded up; subtracted from resulting damage.

    Attacker rolls Dex+Melee normally and scores 4 successes. That's one more than the defense so you've got a hit. You deal 1 damage 3 (base damage) + 0.5 (success by 1) - 2 (target's Soak) = 1.5 rounded down to 1.

    It can get a little mathematically tricky combining past that though (say a single defense target number that combines dodge and soak and a single attack value that combines the attack + damage) because of how extra hit successes add only half to resulting damage), but if you're willing to except greater or lesser lethality depending on how you do it (1/2 margin of success for less lethal that tracking defense and soak separately, full margin for more lethal than tracking them separately) then that option is available too. Keeping them separate can also be a benefit if you're regularly confronting different damage types as you need a separate soak number for each relevant one (Bashing and Lethal is often the same for vampires, but Agg is less and for humans Bashing, Lethal (from armor) and Agg (when its something armor can't stop) are going to be three different values).

    Mix and match to your heart's content. Personally, I like reflexive rolls for defending (particularly when players are on the receiving end and they have different values for blocking/parrying vs. dodging) and so would just use static damage (+1/2 successes) and soak to speed things up. Throw "one attack per turn regardless of number of actions taken" and combats run pretty quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris24601
    replied
    Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
    The thing is the problem isn't ONLY how op it can be, but more so how BORING it is.
    Boring is subjective though. I find V20 Potence far less boring than V5 Potence because V5’s is a discreet list of specific powers/widgets while V20’s uses for increased strength are limited only by my imagination and whatever limits the Storyteller imposes.

    Celerity is similar in that increased speed and agility can be useful in a multitude of ways without adding a lot of extra complexity to keep track of.

    The issue with boredom as you’re describing it isn’t Celerity, it’s the default combat structure in general that can get just as bogged down by splitting large dice pools as it can by full pool extra actions. This is mostly because the default resolution requires a minimum of four rolls where the outcome of successive ones is contingent on the prior ones (i.e. you must roll attack and defense ahead of damage and soak because the margin of the attack’s success adds to the damage).

    Frankly, I think DAV’s streamlined combat rules (i.e. skipping the damage and soak portions and limiting attack actions to once per turn) largely solve those issues and further require any uses of multiple actions to be more creative and less boring since they aren’t useful for just making more attacks with. (I’ll admit too that we also just count defensive actions as reflexives so combat is just an opposed roll for each person’s turn).

    Put simply, I don’t believe Celerity (or multiple non-attack actions) are the actual problem with the system and, as such, efforts spent on patching Celerity are only going to paper over a much deeper problem with the system rather than trying to solve the core problem (too many rolls required to resolve actions which in turn causes multiple actions to take disproportionately longer to resolve and turn what should feel fast paced into a grind).

    I think one could streamline even further than DAV20 does too if one desired. The only real consideration is how streamlined you want the end result to be. For example, some people don’t mind opposed roll because it makes a fight feel more like a contest. Others want single rolls to determine the outcome because it speeds things along to areas they find more important. Neither answer is right except subjectively to one’s preferences.

    One of the lessons I choose to take from DAV20 is that the rules are more what you’d call guidelines and that individual groups shouldn’t be afraid to change them to what best suits their table. The most valuable things a system can provide in this regard is a bit of inside baseball on what the math behind each of the combat stages is so it’s easy to see how you can change it for your needs. Some math wonks can figure that stuff out anyway, but for the rest of us, knowing the framework helps.

    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    This is also why the CofD's original design was constructed the way it was: the WoD's sometimes-one-world/sometimes-separate-worlds approach diminishes the utility of the game. It's one world, with half a dozen different creatures that fall under various concepts (and the potential for countless unique instances) so that you can pick what fits your game if you don't want to have to rework the PC oriented werewolves with their own corebook, and don't want to just use stat blocks with vampire powers to short-hand things. And shorted combat rounds for that matter.
    The disadvantage of CoD is that it’s somewhat all or nothing; if the unifying cosmology of it appeals to you it allows easy crossovers. If it doesn’t then you’ll skip the whole thing because everything will just feel poorly fitted.

    It’s mechanics might be better for crossovers, but it’s need to be all things to all splats means it can end up being quite lukewarm in terms of feel.

    Conversely, the “each splat has its own themes and cosmology” offers way more opportunities for a GM or player to latch onto something that appeals to them within the larger body of material and either just use it (if they’re the GM) or make an appeal for its use (if they’re a player).

    The consensual reality of Acension held appeal to me in my youth (and particularly in trying to run games with players having multiple different perspectives on truth and the way of the world), but the explicitly Biblical morality themes of earlier editions of Masquerade appeal to me strongly today. By contrast the heavy Gnosticism (which I consider a joke of a philosophy) and attendant cosmology so turned me off from Awakening that I have never had any interest in the nWoD/CoD setting.

    In general, I think the strong individual themes of the WoD splats are more likely to capture someone’s interest than the lukewarm unifying cosmology of CoD will… the fact that we’re discussing this in relation to Masquerade which was supposed to have been utterly replaced by the supposedly superior approach in CoD almost two decades ago speaks to the value of stronger and more thematic settings I think.

    Leave a comment:


  • monteparnas
    replied
    Originally posted by Herr Meister View Post
    Yes, we can also have any interpretation of the world we see fit to our games.
    That's more or less my current approach, to.

    Currently I take a game line to be the actual setting of the game, then all others, while they can keep their mechanics, exist in relation to that line and subordinated to its cosmology (plus any twist I deem necessary for the story). I won't say that a player can have anything as a character only because I've accepted that sometimes we have to protect niches and themes for a given story, but that's a flexible negotiation, not a hard rule, and otherwise they can play as anything knowing that it will exist subordinated and twisted to the themes of the chronicle's main splat.

    I'm STing a Changeling game right now, for example, and other supernatural are actually a big part of the game, but while no particular legend will be confirmed, at the end in this chronicle they are indeed, even if they don't know, originally born within the Dreaming.

    Other than the needs of the chronicle and the well-being of my players, nothing is sacred to me. Of course most of the time the lore, mood and themes of the games are really good, but I'll sacrifice any of them for a better game. I'll have stable Abominations, vampires that walk under the sun, stronger or weaker Paradox, anything. It doesn't mean I'll throw thing to the winds without thinking twice, but I won't stop just because it seems badwrongfun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr Meister
    replied
    With all this, I mean that WoD games varies wildly in practice. Everything is up to the ST and his group. I know one friend who has been STing Werewolf for more than 2 decades and in his games he severly limits gifts, fetishes, etc. His game is a more "down to Earth" version of Werewolf, where many of the things we take for granted aren't there, like some of the most powerful gifts, etc.
    At the same time, I had a friend who ST vampire and he once made a Tremere Councillor (I don't remember if it was Etrius, Goratrix or Meerlinda, but it doesn't matter) make a ritual that caused whooping 30 damage in a firestorm fashion. I remember back in the days I used to mock his games and call his games more "Harry Potter than vampire" (I was a teenager), but then again his group loved his games, and now I look back and see that who am I to judge the way other people have fun in their games?
    In the end, there's no such rule to determine what your game should be, etc. The most important rule is to have fun.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr Meister
    replied
    But I remember, back in the early 2000's I ST one game where Werewolves were just misguided spawns of Ennoia, but it's so long time ago I don't remember much about the game, to be honest.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr Meister
    replied
    Originally posted by Heavy Arms View Post
    This is also why the CofD's original design was constructed the way it was: the WoD's sometimes-one-world/sometimes-separate-worlds approach diminishes the utility of the game. It's one world, with half a dozen different creatures that fall under various concepts (and the potential for countless unique instances) so that you can pick what fits your game if you don't want to have to rework the PC oriented werewolves with their own corebook, and don't want to just use stat blocks with vampire powers to short-hand things. And shorted combat rounds for that matter.

    Yes, this lack of a "one world" approach makes it sometimes complicated to ST crossovers. As I said, as I have a lot of experience with crossovers and know quite a bit of every splat, I prefer to have full fleshed characters from each line in my games, but I know some ST who prefer to simplify things, like using werewolves with vampiric disciplines or the opposite, using vampires in their games with a collection of gifts and some innate powers. It's all up to the ST and the players. I only hate multiple actions and the rules of my games are somewhat closer to CofD, but I allow full fleshed characters from at least the 3 lines, i.e. Mage, Vampire and Werewolf, because I think it's "cleaner" this way and more fun for everyone involved.

    Leave a comment:


  • Heavy Arms
    replied
    This is also why the CofD's original design was constructed the way it was: the WoD's sometimes-one-world/sometimes-separate-worlds approach diminishes the utility of the game. It's one world, with half a dozen different creatures that fall under various concepts (and the potential for countless unique instances) so that you can pick what fits your game if you don't want to have to rework the PC oriented werewolves with their own corebook, and don't want to just use stat blocks with vampire powers to short-hand things. And shorted combat rounds for that matter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr Meister
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
    Or, because the rules of any setting I run are whatever I say they are, the werewolves in it can be whatever level of threat I choose for them to be. They could even have completely different origins completely divorced from the themes of WtA if I think it will make my Vampire game run more smoothly.

    I could say that all werewolves in my Vampire game are the cursed descendants of Lycaon who hunger for human flesh and have zero connection to Gaia because in my setting the Roman Catholic cosmology is objectively true and that, other than vampiric power and true faith (Catholic only) the only magic which exists comes in the form of Dark Thaumaturgy learned from demons because I think that those options will better fit in with the themes of my Vampire campaign. When I run a Mage game I can declare Vampires to be Thaumivores readily accepted by the collective unconscious while Werewolves are the mortal hosts of beast spirits whose cosmology is no more accurate than any other one believed in by elements of humanity because that will work better with the themes of my Mage game.

    Put simply; the games I run do not have to conform to your beliefs of how things should work. If you don't like that, then you're welcome to not play in games that I run.

    Yes, we can also have any interpretation of the world we see fit to our games. I remember the Gangrel used to say werewolves came from Ennoia (at least, the last time I read a Gangrel clanbook, SO MANY years ago) and if a ST likes this interpretation, all the werewolve's cosmology are nothing more than fantasy. In the end, everything in the game is subject to what the ST wants for his game. I like to use and allow werewolves and mages, esides vampires, etc, in my games, but I always tell my players that I'm a very "agnostic" ST, I avoid confirming what is true in the myths and what is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris24601
    replied
    Originally posted by Saur Ops Specialist View Post

    Before using werebeasts as antagonists, ask your players if they want to have high attrition and character turnover. If the answer is no, don't use them as antagonists. Their genre is splatter, and if they're not splattering multiple victims at once, you probably could have just used a different monster for the monster mash.
    Or, because the rules of any setting I run are whatever I say they are, the werewolves in it can be whatever level of threat I choose for them to be. They could even have completely different origins completely divorced from the themes of WtA if I think it will make my Vampire game run more smoothly.

    I could say that all werewolves in my Vampire game are the cursed descendants of Lycaon who hunger for human flesh and have zero connection to Gaia because in my setting the Roman Catholic cosmology is objectively true and that, other than vampiric power and true faith (Catholic only) the only magic which exists comes in the form of Dark Thaumaturgy learned from demons because I think that those options will better fit in with the themes of my Vampire campaign. When I run a Mage game I can declare Vampires to be Thaumivores readily accepted by the collective unconscious while Werewolves are the mortal hosts of beast spirits whose cosmology is no more accurate than any other one believed in by elements of humanity because that will work better with the themes of my Mage game.

    Put simply; the games I run do not have to conform to your beliefs of how things should work. If you don't like that, then you're welcome to not play in games that I run.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herr Meister
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
    DAV20’s approach of allowing everyone to take multiple actions (but only one can be an attack) for -1 die and +1 difficulty to all per extra action and Celerity mostly just helping to mitigate the penalties (partially by default, totally with blood expenditure) does a lot to help keep multiple actions from getting over the top (that said we ignore the “up to half your Celerity rating can be additional attacks”).

    Applying a similar restriction to every other form of multi-action granter (i.e. still limited to 1 attack per turn) and the use of Celerity (and extra actions in general) becomes more about what extra things you can do in addition to attacking; more easily defend, move, pull off some stunt to gain an advantage, etc.; rather than just blasting your opponent with a flurry of strikes (which frankly can just be represented by the extra damage dice from a good attack roll). The automatic weapons rules for affecting multiple targets (increased difficulty, split successes between targets) works well for those times when you want to strike multiple opponents in a single turn with close combat attacks without blowing the system to little pieces too (i.e. mainly useful for taking mooks off the board).

    It also tends to make werewolves (and other multi-action types like certain mages) a bit more useable as potential antagonists when they can’t unload with four attacks on a single target with full dice pools in a turn. Use rage to close at lightning speed, to flip the car your opponent is using for cover, and to evade their panicked attack on you while still getting a full power attack in… still lots of uses for Rage to make a werewolf a badass without taking their already ridiculous combat numbers and multiplying them across multiple attack actions.

    The thing is the problem isn't ONLY how op it can be, but more so how BORING it is. Combats that take hours to conclude because of multiple actions, I've been there many times over the last 20 years, I'm very grateful that I finally decided to abolish it altogether in the last 4 years or so. There are many ways to portray Mages, Werewolves and the even more problematic in this regard Vampires extra speed ("more problematic" because of the general easiness of access to multiple actions and the larger pools to draw upon, etc) than using multiple actions. Multiple actions are boring to the extreme and slowdown combat scenes to a crawl. Combats are SO MUCH SMOOTHER without it, that I don't want to ever look back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Saur Ops Specialist
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris24601 View Post
    DAV20’s approach of allowing everyone to take multiple actions (but only one can be an attack) for -1 die and +1 difficulty to all per extra action and Celerity mostly just helping to mitigate the penalties (partially by default, totally with blood expenditure) does a lot to help keep multiple actions from getting over the top (that said we ignore the “up to half your Celerity rating can be additional attacks”).

    Applying a similar restriction to every other form of multi-action granter (i.e. still limited to 1 attack per turn) and the use of Celerity (and extra actions in general) becomes more about what extra things you can do in addition to attacking; more easily defend, move, pull off some stunt to gain an advantage, etc.; rather than just blasting your opponent with a flurry of strikes (which frankly can just be represented by the extra damage dice from a good attack roll). The automatic weapons rules for affecting multiple targets (increased difficulty, split successes between targets) works well for those times when you want to strike multiple opponents in a single turn with close combat attacks without blowing the system to little pieces too (i.e. mainly useful for taking mooks off the board).

    It also tends to make werewolves (and other multi-action types like certain mages) a bit more useable as potential antagonists when they can’t unload with four attacks on a single target with full dice pools in a turn. Use rage to close at lightning speed, to flip the car your opponent is using for cover, and to evade their panicked attack on you while still getting a full power attack in… still lots of uses for Rage to make a werewolf a badass without taking their already ridiculous combat numbers and multiplying them across multiple attack actions.
    Before using werebeasts as antagonists, ask your players if they want to have high attrition and character turnover. If the answer is no, don't use them as antagonists. Their genre is splatter, and if they're not splattering multiple victims at once, you probably could have just used a different monster for the monster mash.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris24601
    replied
    DAV20’s approach of allowing everyone to take multiple actions (but only one can be an attack) for -1 die and +1 difficulty to all per extra action and Celerity mostly just helping to mitigate the penalties (partially by default, totally with blood expenditure) does a lot to help keep multiple actions from getting over the top (that said we ignore the “up to half your Celerity rating can be additional attacks”).

    Applying a similar restriction to every other form of multi-action granter (i.e. still limited to 1 attack per turn) and the use of Celerity (and extra actions in general) becomes more about what extra things you can do in addition to attacking; more easily defend, move, pull off some stunt to gain an advantage, etc.; rather than just blasting your opponent with a flurry of strikes (which frankly can just be represented by the extra damage dice from a good attack roll). The automatic weapons rules for affecting multiple targets (increased difficulty, split successes between targets) works well for those times when you want to strike multiple opponents in a single turn with close combat attacks without blowing the system to little pieces too (i.e. mainly useful for taking mooks off the board).

    It also tends to make werewolves (and other multi-action types like certain mages) a bit more useable as potential antagonists when they can’t unload with four attacks on a single target with full dice pools in a turn. Use rage to close at lightning speed, to flip the car your opponent is using for cover, and to evade their panicked attack on you while still getting a full power attack in… still lots of uses for Rage to make a werewolf a badass without taking their already ridiculous combat numbers and multiplying them across multiple attack actions.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X