[Open Dev] 2e Revised Endowments

[The Kings Raven]

That is a very damning statement. I do find the majority of your arguments to be fairly strong and agreeable, especially with the feeling that the numbers were a little bit messy to deal with. However, I have the opposite sentiment to the rules as I feel that most of the flaws in the system might be ironed out with a better format (for easier comprehensive reading) and with more clarity (breathing anything is a +3 Permission but Breath of the Dragon seems to make it a +4 because it makes a Toxicity 4 cloud?).

Some of the flaws I hit are limits of the rules themselves and cannot be solved with just more clarity. The inability to have a Limiter that's personalised to the hunter like "when you're working to follow your oath", or the lack of support for a general effect that does a bit extra in certain situations "monsters cannot enter the affected church, but Vampires also take Damage for trying". And you cannot have an Endowment like the 1E Compact Endowments because they're all bonus and no downside. These are real flaws that need a more substantial fix than clarification.


Having slept on it though, I also realised that a large part of the problem is that the numbers have to balance to zero. In the WoD's other flexible powers setups (Mage Arcana, Vampire's Blood Sorcery book, and all the fan stuff like Genius' Wonders) there's no need to balance*. Positive factors like additional area of effect have a cost; a dice penalty, more required successes, limitations give you a bonus. That makes a nice linear design. You choose the effect, then you work out what you need for the effect, then you work out the cost, then you're done.

This Endowment system cannot have that nice neat linear system. If you get to the bottom and the value isn't zero you have to back and repeat a step looking for ways to balance the numbers. Redesigning the system to remove the need to balance things to zero, and instead modifying the Endowment based on the final Value would be a big step forward.



* The only exception is 1E Changeling Pledges and Goblin Vows, which are mechanically much simpler than Endowments. And more importantly, for Pledges/Goblin Vows you design the cost and benefit separately which makes the system much simpler. You never need to go back and modify the effect you wanted to balance things, just pick a cost that matches whatever you came up with. With Endowments the two are tied together, so it would be really hard to balance a SX-11A that only affects Goetica.

[Second Chances]

That is a very damning statement. I do find the majority of your arguments to be fairly strong and agreeable, especially with the feeling that the numbers were a little bit messy to deal with. However, I have the opposite sentiment to the rules as I feel that most of the flaws in the system might be ironed out with a better format (for easier comprehensive reading) and with more clarity (breathing anything is a +3 Permission but Breath of the Dragon seems to make it a +4 because it makes a Toxicity 4 cloud?).

Actually, I think a step-by-step format (similar to Character Creation) might help clear up the rules. Like, start with what lets a Hunter have access to the Endowment (Prerequisites), explain how to perform the Endowment (Toll), describe what the Endowment does (Permissions & Bans), and define the limitations and side-effects of the Endowment (Limitations & Backlash). I know that when I gave Setto an attempt at a translation, I kept having to jump back and forth between tables to figure out what is allowed and where. It felt really disorganized and stressful.

Agreed on both sentiments. I 100% feel more comfortable creating my own endowments with these rules than trying to ad-hoc balance them against the examples in 1e. That said, having an example of endowment creation that mirrored the example of character creation would be exceedingly helpful and was one of the first things that I thought of.

[Reaper Verse]

I have to say it. If these rules were in 1E, I don't think I'd have bothered writing my own Compacts and Conspiracies.

That is a very damning statement. I do find the majority of your arguments to be fairly strong and agreeable, especially with the feeling that the numbers were a little bit messy to deal with. However, I have the opposite sentiment to the rules as I feel that most of the flaws in the system might be ironed out with a better format (for easier comprehensive reading) and with more clarity (breathing anything is a +3 Permission but Breath of the Dragon seems to make it a +4 because it makes a Toxicity 4 cloud?).

Actually, I think a step-by-step format (similar to Character Creation) might help clear up the rules. Like, start with what lets a Hunter have access to the Endowment (Prerequisites), explain how to perform the Endowment (Toll), describe what the Endowment does (Permissions & Bans), and define the limitations and side-effects of the Endowment (Limitations & Backlash). I know that when I gave Setto an attempt at a translation, I kept having to jump back and forth between tables to figure out what is allowed and where. It felt really disorganized and stressful.

[The Kings Raven]

Sons of CuChulain

Concept: Iron Gesa

The Hound's power comes from their Honour and brotherhood; to represent this they may buy a special Merit called Honour that is rated one to five and can be enhanced through victory in battle, dedication on the training field, and by always adhering to the proper behaviour expected of a noble warrior. The first dot of Honour comes free when purchasing this Endowment. To activate this Endowment requires swearing an oath upon iron and binding an unbound Dots of Honor.

If the oath is fulfilled the dots of Honour are unbound to the Hunter instantly and are once again available for use, however the oath is broken (including a failure after an honest attempt, if you swear to avenge your father's death but someone else kills the faerie without your involvement that's a broken oath) you take the Oath-Breaker condition and cannot unbind those dots without first Resolving the Condition.

A serious breach of a warrior's ethics, such as betraying the Compact inflicts the Oath-Breaker condition and binds all the Hunters dots of Honour, any active Oaths are invalidated. To represent this the Sons gain an extra Backlash on their Endowment

Warrior's Code (Indefinite, Superior)

Effects:
+5 Extendable effect: Add the Dots of honour invested to rolls to use the specific piece of iron the oath was sworn upon as a weapon (swining an iron sword, shooting an iron plated gun, etc)
+5 Extendable effect: Add the Dots of honour invested to rolls to resist effects that befuddle the senses or enchants the mind.
Resolve: By fulfilling your oath you unbind the invested Honour

Toll:
-1: Touch iron and swear and oath
-1: Bind points of honour.

Backlash:
-2: Failure to fulfil your oath ends the condition results in the Oath-Breaker Condition
-3: Conduct unbecoming of a warrior ends the condition and results in the Oath-Breaker Condition.

Limiters
-3: If succeeding in a roll will not further your oath you gain no benefit from this Endowment.


Commentary: The 1E sons Endowment is pretty straightforward, in a paragraph “Swear an Oath upon iron and assign Dots from your Endowment Merit to the Oath. When working to fulfil the oath you add the invested Dots to rolls to resist faerie magic and rolls to use the aforementioned iron as a weapon. If you break the oath or betray the compact you take a negative condition.”

However when I tried porting that to the new system I couldn't get it to balance without dropping the part where they only get protection from fae numbers. Overall the numbers just felt all over the place; +10 for getting two different rolls to scale with a merit was bad enough but -5 to Limit one of the two effects to faeries only is just painful. Limiting an Endowment to your compacts favoured foe strikes me as a very common thing to want to do, so I don't like the thought of having to balance random -5s everywhere. (For the record; I chose -5 because “It's not a faerie” is definitely common).

Secondly this system really doesn't like variability. Conceptually “you get a bonus when working to fufil your oath” is simple, straight forward, and thematic for a group based on Celtic mythology. However value as per the Limiter Table would vary depending on the breadth of Oath. I split the difference and called it three but still...

I know they're ways around this, I could have crammed more exceptions into the Concept, but at this point it felt like I was fighting the system. Given that the whole point of such a system is to make it easier to design Endowments that defeats the point.


I hadn't taken the new for a spin until Reaper Verse asked me to because I knew I wasn't the target audience. As my track record will attest, I've never had any trouble writing my own Endowments. I thought that this would add some book-keeping to the process, but I was surprised how hard it was to create a conceptually simple Enodwment.

Once I looked closer I realised that actually, I was lucky to get it as close to the original as I did. None of the old Compact Endowments would work (I'm doing Science would have a Value of 11!); and I loved the old Compact Endowments. For a system like this it's as important to check what it cannot do as what it can do. As written it can't do Compact Endowments. It can't do anything that affects most splats one way but has an additional bonus against your Conspiracies favoured enemy (E.G. A Benediction that wards a Church keeping monsters out, but makes vampires burst into flame as per traditional lore). You can barely do anything where the effect varies according to the situation rather than switches off. (Technically you can have a Limiter like if it's a new moon it's less powerful, but the numbers only vary based on the if, not the then. Something like If it's a holy day then this Elixir is even stronger is technically possible, but clearly not intended).

I have to say it. If these rules were in 1E, I don't think I'd have bothered writing my own Compacts and Conspiracies.

[Tessie]

So, not Professional Training (Hunter)?

It's quite possible to be both experienced and really fucking good at something without getting recognition. But Professional Training probably works better than Status, imo, so it's not a bad suggestion.

[Tessie]

It's more of a homebrew suggestion so I'm going to put it in a spoiler tag to not break the flow of this thread.

You could have Confidence or Trust as a second morality type trait.
You start with 3 dots (with the possibility of buying up to two dots extra by spending two Merit dots per Trust dot only at character creation) or however many dots the ST thinks is fitting for the chronicle.
Similar to Harmony from Werewolf you can experience Breaking Points in both directions. Successfully completing missions, carrying out favours, etc would lead to Breaking Points upwards. Failing missions, violating direct orders, etc would lead to Breaking Points downwards.
The base dice pool would depend on the difficulty of the action or the severity of the infraction. I suggested starting at five dice for minor things and go down to a zero die dice pool for the really serious stuff.

Dramatic Failure: Your actions have left a dramatic impression on your superiors. Gain two dots of Trust if you experienced a Breaking Point upwards, or lose two dots of Trust if you experienced a Breaking Point downwards. You may not choose to downgrade a failed roll to a dramatic failure.
Failure: Your actions have left an impression on your superiors. Gain a dot of Trust if you experienced a Breaking Point upwards, or lose a dot of Trust if you experienced a Breaking Point downwards.
Success: You've failed to make an impression and stays on the same level. Take the Condition Trustworthy if you experienced a Breaking Point upwards, or take the Condition Untrustworthy if you experienced a Breaking Point downwards.
Exceptional Success: Despite carrying out orders you've to draw the ire of your superiors; or despite your violation you've showed that you're a valuable asset. Lose one dot of Trust if you experienced a Breaking Point upwards, or gain one dot of Trust if you experienced a Breaking Point downwards.

Suggested Modifiers on Breaking Points upwards:
* Trust 8-10 (+2)
* Trust 6-7 (+1)
* Disrespecting superiors (+1 to +2)
* Bootlicking (-1 to -2)
* Friendly fire (+2 to +5)
* Going against orders and/or a core tenet of the Conspiracy (+1 to +3)
* Achieving a higher degree of success than expected (-1 to -3)
* Burning social Merits (variable; minus one die per dot of Allies, Contacts, Mentor, True Friend, etc that was burned)

Suggested Modifiers on Breaking Points downwards:
* Trust 3-5 (-1)
* Trust 1-2 (-2)
* Disrespecting superiors (-1 to -2)
* Bootlicking (+1 to +2)
* Friendly fire (-2 to -5)
* Going against orders and/or a core tenet of the Conspiracy (+1 to +3)
* Managing to screw up more than could be expected (+1 to +3)
* Burning social Merits (variable; plus one die per dot of Allies, Contacts, Mentor, True Friend, etc that was burned)

Trustworthy (working title)
While not being able to gain the Conspiracy's trust, your actions have not gone completely unnoticed.
Take a -2 bonus to the next Breaking Point if it's upwards, or a +2 bonus if it's downwards.
Beat: n/a
Resolution: Experience another Breaking Point in either direction.

Untrustworthy (working title)
While managing not to draw too much attention to your screw up, your actions have not gone completely unnoticed.
Take a +2 penalty to the next Breaking Point if it's upwards, or a -2 penalty if it's downwards.
Beat: n/a
Resolution: Experience another Breaking Point in either direction.

[Vent0]

You could just add a separate Merit: Confidence (• to •••••) (working title). Even if your Status is low you could get a high Confidence from either handouts from the ST after successfully completing missions for your Conspiracy, or using up your starting Merit dots (representing having completed missions before the start of the Chronicle). Confidence then being a prerequisite for Endowments that are primarily for field use, instead of Status since Status doesn't necessarily come easy to field agents in some of the Conspiracies.

So, not Professional Training (Hunter)?

[Tessie]

You could just add a separate Merit: Confidence (• to •••••) (working title). Even if your Status is low you could get a high Confidence from either handouts from the ST after successfully completing missions for your Conspiracy, or using up your starting Merit dots (representing having completed missions before the start of the Chronicle). Confidence then being a prerequisite for Endowments that are primarily for field use, instead of Status since Status doesn't necessarily come easy to field agents in some of the Conspiracies.

[Reaper Verse]

[*]Make Status a prerequisite for adminstration/strategy themed Enodwments but not for the big guns. If it's useful when you're 10 foot away from a Vampire it's Status 2 at most. However things like access to the NSA's big brother systems (TF:V), praying for divine prophecies (MM), a globe of the Earth that tracks Mummies in real time (AKD) all require high status.

It's kinda funny that you mention the potential big guns, considering that you were brainstorming about the big guns in a previous thread. Admittedly, I'm pretty fine with Status being a limiter but having it be more flavorful would be a good way to prevent Status from being a crutch for the more powerful Endowments.

Like, the newbies of a Conspiracy (Status 1 and 2) get access to the replaceable toys that are mainly for field operations. Supervisors and admins (Status 3 and 4) are respected and considered to be capable enough to handle the proper tools and call some of the shots (like being able to call on a covert armored vehicle or possibly gaining access to experimental projects). The higher-ups (Status 5) get the big secrets, not exactly having them but being able to access them (I envision AKD's mummy globe to be a huge rotating device that has been partially embedded into the flooring of their main bases of operation so it's not exactly portable).

Speaking of which, have you had a chance to take a crack at the proto-creation rules for Endowments, TKR?

[The Kings Raven]

The solution is separate out rank from "experienced and competent". A member of the Navy Seals is almost certainly going to be better in a fight than a five star general, but you'd want to give the Navy Seal the best guns because he'd use them better.

Some possible ways of doing so:

• Make Status a prerequisite for adminstration/strategy themed Enodwments but not for the big guns. If it's useful when you're 10 foot away from a Vampire it's Status 2 at most. However things like access to the NSA's big brother systems (TF:V), praying for divine prophecies (MM), a globe of the Earth that tracks Mummies in real time (AKD) all require high status.
• Use Attributes/Skills as a prerequisite. If you want access to St George's Lance, then you need to have a high Drive (motorcycles)/Animal Ken (horses) and Weaponry. The AKD won't take a powerful Relic like that out of storage unless you know how to use it.
• Conspiracies (but not Compacts) have a Y shaped status track. When you buy the third dot you choose the officer path or the soldier path. Then you could say that some Endowments require not only status, but the right kind of status.
• Use Professional Training as a prerequisite. I put this here for completeness, I think it would be unwieldy and messy. Is Professional Training 5 (Vagrant) going to get you anywhere in TF:V? And if not, do Endowments need a list of acceptable Professions?

[Raistlin]

I hope that isn't overused though. I don't want players to think "I want this power to help me kill vampires, better get my 4th dot of Status". Because once you're at Status 4 you're probably stuck behind a desk most of the time.

I mean, what's the point of having a Status Merit if status 1 and 5 are both taking orders and hunting monsters. High Status in a Conspiracy should feel like you personally are one of the movers and shakers, you are on the committee that decides if TF:V is going to send a hundred men to reclaim Detroit from the monsters or if you're going to focus elsewhere.

I have the same problem. While I get only the most experienced and competent agents should get access to the good stuff, once you get in a high authority seat your chances to set foot back in the battlefield get drastically reduced (because you are now too valuable). If anything, you need that level 4 endowment far less than the newbies.
Any idea to correct this?

[The Kings Raven]

I think AKD and Ascending Ones both have problems with identity.

Actually I don't see the same issues with the Ascending Ones. If you treat the AO as three different groups with a really strong alliance between them then a strong core identity emerges.

The Southern Temple: A network of alchemical scholars.
The Knife of Paradise: The Assassins from Assassins Creed (I really hope they get an Elixir to make AC style parkour possible)
The Jagged Cresent: An international drug syndicate. The top ranks are Pablo Escobar, the lower ranks are Avon Barksdale.

I also found their general focus to be rather lacking, as the other Conspiracies have a stronger reason to actively act as a Hunter organization

One of the books mentioned that the AKD's higher up have a top secret goal to reclaim their magic power. I'd make that goal known to all members of the Conspiracy and very popular.

Drop all the specific details of their myths of the fall (known details are inevitably wrong, but an invitation for playeres to explore could result in eventual right answers) and instead just state that they know there was some kind of event that broke the world because they're very good archaeologists, and that their goal is to correct it, or at least get themselves the goodies that mankind cannot easily access. To do that they need Relics, and to get Relics they often need to hunt the monster who's making them.

I would also like to say that I appreciate the fact that the example Endowments use Status in the Conspiracy as a prerequisite. It makes investing in Status and gaining Endowments much more intertwined and substantial.

I hope that isn't overused though. I don't want players to think "I want this power to help me kill vampires, better get my 4th dot of Status". Because once you're at Status 4 you're probably stuck behind a desk most of the time.

I mean, what's the point of having a Status Merit if status 1 and 5 are both taking orders and hunting monsters. High Status in a Conspiracy should feel like you personally are one of the movers and shakers, you are on the committee that decides if TF:V is going to send a hundred men to reclaim Detroit from the monsters or if you're going to focus elsewhere.

[Reaper Verse]

If it's the case that all of the core Conspiracies made the cut, it'd be pretty swell. If not, cutting AKD (or at least making them a passing reference) would be sad but understandable. Their Endowment in and of itself, Relics, is the least "unique" of the others considering that they are trinkets that are meant to be found and exist to a degree in a blue-book environment thanks to Reliquary. I also found their general focus to be rather lacking, as the other Conspiracies have a stronger reason to actively act as a Hunter organization (TFV is a secret military, AO want to act as ambassadors, Lucifuge and MM have religious-based reasons, Cheiron wants parts). I feel that Aegis Kai Doru is more like a large-scale Mystery Cult that focuses on gathering Relics, with the act of actually hunting or interacting with the supernatural as a sort of footnote. Of course, your mileage may very.

Looking back at the Endowment rules, I noticed that it says that Endowments (which in context I assume to mean the individual powers) are bought. This contrasts to 1E's model where players would spend dots in the Endowment merit and that each Endowment tree had its own way of providing the powers (Castigation rituals are gained one per dot, Benedictions can be individually bought but are powered by the merit's dots, etc.) There is a mention of linear scaling, where certain powers will be significantly stronger but will cost more as well as prerequisites possibly including owning another Endowment power. Presumably, this may mean that the 1-5 dot Endowments in 1E can be translated as well as branching Endowments like Teleinformatics and Goetic Gospels. Ironically, I feel that the most difficult Endowment to translate would be the Merrick Institute's

I would also like to say that I appreciate the fact that the example Endowments use Status in the Conspiracy as a prerequisite. It makes investing in Status and gaining Endowments much more intertwined and substantial.

I still wonder how the system would handle Endowments which are based around stealing the powers of other beings, such as Setto or the Rite of Hecate, instead of a collection of existing powers.

Here's my quick write-up for Setto. I feel that my rendition of the Endowment was a little strong so I reduced how much Cost the Limiters and Backlashes would reduce..

Endowment Concept - Marks: The Setto Endowment consists of one power that may be purchased multiple times. Marks represent a Dread Power stolen from a supernatural creature. For each time the power is purchased, the number of Marks increases by 1. When a Hototogisu's Marks reaches 0, they are unable to steal any more Dread Powers with their power. Dread Powers may be shed freely, increasing the number of Marks by the number of Dread Powers shed.

Setto (Keywords: Indefinite, Scourge)
Setto represents a two-stage action. Firstly, the Hototogisu must steal away a specified Dread Power from the target by reducing the target to their final Door (through Social Maneuvering). Once there, the Hototogisu can steal away their power using wordplay and trickery. After the Dread Power is stolen, the Hototogisu may flaunt their success, willfully using the power at their own discretion.

Effect:
-Marks: 1, +1 for each additional purchase of the Setto Endowment
-1 Willpower to attempt to steal a Dread Power with The Long Con (Toll: -1 Cost)
-The Long Con: [Intelligence + Larceny] to rob a supernatural creature of their Dread Power.
Roll Results
Success: The con succeeds. 1 Mark is spent. A Dread Power of the Hototogisu's choosing is suppressed, preventing the creature from using it. The Dread Power becomes available for the Hototogisu under the Ill-Gotten Gains action.
+Exceptional: The Hototogisu regains 1 spent Willpower due to the ease of their success.
Failure: The Hototogisu fails at opening the target's Door and is unable to steal away their power.
+Dramatic: The target rejects the Hototogisu's behavior and drops their impression level to Hostile.
(Ban: Target cannot use their Dread Power for an indefinite period, +5 Cost)
-1+ Willpower to use a stolen Dread Power with Ill-Gotten Goods (Toll: 0 Cost due to the nature of this ability)
-Ill-Gotten Goods: If the Hototogisu gains a Dread Power through The Long Con, they may use the power by spending the power's Willpower cost and rolling the specified dice on the power.
(Permission: The Hototogisu gains access to their Dread Power for an indefinite period, +5 Cost)
-Refresh: +1 Mark by removing a Dread Power stolen through The Long Con; the Dread Power's original owner regains the power

Limiter:
-Limit: If Marks is 0, the action "The Long Con" cannot be used (liberties taken; because of the nature of this ability, -1 Cost flat)
-Limit: If the target has no Dread Powers, the action "The Long Con" cannot be used (-2 Cost)
-Limit: If the target is not at their final Door in a Social Maneuver, the action "The Long Con" cannot be used (-1 Cost)
-Limit: If a Dread Power requires the user to have specific physical trait to use (such as wings or a tail) that the Hototogisu does not have, the Dread Power cannot be used through the "Ill-Gotten Goods" action. (-1 Cost)

Backlash:
-The Hototogisu's aura appears to be supernatural if they have at least 1 Dread Power stolen (-1 Cost, situational)
-The target of "The Long Con" is aware of the Hototogisu's deception once "The Long Con" is resolved (-1 cost)

Prerequisite:
-Hototogisu Status 1, +1 for each additional purchase of the Setto Endowment (again, liberties taken; -2 Cost flat)

[Morty]

I think AKD and Ascending Ones both have problems with identity. The Ascending Ones just don't seem to have much glueing them together, beyond the alchemy. Which makes a degree of sense, on some level. They're an extremely old group, that has spread across the world. But from a player's perspective, they do need an identity. The existing materials gives them ancient Egyptian religions, Islam, alchemy, mysticism and drug-dealing.

[The Kings Raven]

I wouldn't say the AKD are forgettable, but they always struck me as the hardest to get a clear picture off. None of the Hunter organisation write ups go into that much detail about how a group is organised, but usually it's not a problem. The Compacts are mostly bottom up networks anyway. TF:V is a secret government division, I can fill in the blanks from Hollywood. Cheiron is an evil corporation, the MM are catholic sponsored inquisitors. Again I can fill in the blanks.

But the AKD. Are they a freemason like society that operates publicly but has deeper secrets than the rumour mill ever guessed? Or are they a bunch of individual groups who mostly know about themselves, Athens, and have a vague idea of the bigger picture. There's not enough detail to point to a specific archetype.

It probably doesn't help that their hatred for vampires and werewolves is a large part of their personality; and I always found it a bit bland. I've got nothing against a group fanatical here and there Hunters, the Canites are awesome, but there just isn't enough about their mythology to grab my interest or enough to create a charachter with an interesting relationship to the myths.

Overall the only concrete thing I can attach to the AKD is an Indiana Jones style archaeologist, but that seems to clash heavily with everything else about the AKD. Indie would never blindly accept a myth, he's entire shtick is digging into an old temple and finding proof.


Hopefully 2E will fix them, and give them a much stronger identity. With the Malleus Maleficarum we all know exactly who the Catholic Church is, so if the wordcount is spent on their hatred of Vampires we still know how a MM hunter is likely to think and act. The AKD are the only core group without a clearly identifiable archetype, so the text needs to show us who the AKD are before it can go onto their relationship to others.