Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

User Profile

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

  • So, this might have been covered elsewhere already, and if so I apologize - does it look like it will be possible to play Deviants of nonhuman origin? I don't mean animals, but more along the lines of, say, and Android or something.

    I can do certain types of Android stories really well with Promethean, but I feel like deviant would fit an entirely different type fairly well.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • I mean, I'm the only one that said anything remotely critical of either, and I said that as an active member of both communities. It was also clearly flagged as a personal observation. The only other person that mentioned them said to double check anything you learn there about the rules, as well as here, which essentially amounts to 'do your own research regardless of source'.

    For extra context on my own observations (which I stand by) it's just a result of those being communities with a less laser-guided focus. Reddit has subreddits for everything, and obviously is going to have...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by lnodiv; 07-03-2019, 09:48 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Awesome, thanks for the clarity!

    Generally speaking my table uses Tilts as replacements for Conditions in combat for exceptional successes (and they rarely turn into actual Conditions), so I'm glad to see that that's not breaking anything terribly.

    Now that I think about it, at some point, some kind of in-depth guide on the use of Conditions/Tilts would be nice to see, I think (in some kind of general Storyteller's Guide, maybe?)...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Meghan Fitzgerald - you mentioned before that you wrote the violence subsystem for the CofD. Are you able to shed any light, here? Are the violence rules meant to be an exception to bringing Conditions into play for an exceptional success?
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by lnodiv; 07-03-2019, 03:00 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • The rules for Supernal Entities and their Arcana only limit the maximum dots they can have in their two primary Arcana, and impose no limits on the number of secondary, lower-rated Arcana they may possess....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • You can turn Shadows solid with Death 3, too, though...

    This spell is literally just a published spell (Shadow Crafting) with the serial numbers filed off. That spell doesn't require Matter and neither should this. The precedent for requiring Matter to give things solidity in 2E is incredibly weak at best.

    'Solids' is listed as being under the purview of Matter, but that doesn't necessarily make them sacrosanct and untouchable by any other Arcanum in any way; language is the purview of Prime and yet Universal Language is a Mind Spell (sensibly and reasonably so).
    ...
    See more | Go to post
    Last edited by lnodiv; 06-30-2019, 07:26 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fantastic, just what I was looking for. Thank you!...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Broken Diamond, The Soul Cage, and The Man Comes Around

    Are these available in any format outside of their original postings on RPG.net? I've read fragments of them here and there, but following through the threads doesn't really work for me when I want to just sit down and read something.
    See more | Go to post

  • Without an active spell to worry about the impact of Dissonance, what are the differences between Quiescence breaking points and normal, supernatural ones?
    Off the top of my head, the only thing I could think of would be that the Quiescence ones keep happening? eg. you can't become desensitized to them.

    I would probably run it as the latter, personally. Though, as a counterpoint, I suppose it's not that different from looking at a photograph of Supernal phenomena - both are evidence of supernal magic left after the fact. And I believe that looking at photos/videos of Supernal...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • It is impossible to take you seriously when you try this hard to be condescending....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • lnodiv
    started a topic Sticky/Unsticky

    Sticky/Unsticky

    What's the proper channel to request a post be stickied (or unstickied)?
    See more | Go to post

  • Was there not an advance PDF of the core complete with art, etc but pre-errata?...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • lnodiv
    replied to Signs of Sorcery is on DTRPG!
    This was my take as well. Still not sure if it’s right, though....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • To be clear, I’m not disputing the RAW, where it clearly works. I’m not even saying it shouldn’t work. I’m just suggesting that it is not at all unreasonable for someone operating in ignorance of the RAW to believe it might not work, based on symbolic arguments and the focus of the text.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Kind of like the common folklore knowledge of using a stake to pin a corpse to the grave so it wouldn’t rise again? Something that certainly never involved using a crossbow to do the job during it’s Slavic origins?

    And yet, common sense *should* cause us to disregard that knowledge, but not knowledge about the symbolic differences between moonlight and sunlight. Interesting stance....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The only difference between moonlight and sunlight is that the former is a reflection of the latter.
    And yet, that difference matters.

    In broad terms, CofD runs on symbolism, not common sense....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • The ST, of course, has a variable amount of leeway table-to-table to adjust and change rules like this on the fly, or provide input into what is or isn't appropriate.

    RAW clearly states that the player can choose to bring a relevant condition into play whenever rolling an exceptional success.
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • So, something I've noticed personally is that a lot of the people on the various Discords don't always have the best understanding of the rules. Reddit, likewise. As far as actual rules discussions go, I've mostly found these forums to be the most reliable.


    Chronicles of Darkness, Page 75.

    Note that it doesn't necessarily have to be a positive Condition affecting your character, it can also be a negative condition affecting an enemy, or a positive Condition affecting an ally, etc.

    You will note that this doesn't explicitly say 'including attack rolls'...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • This is the piece I was missing. Where is this mentioned?

    Edit: Found it, mentioned in the ranged weapons chart and literally nowhere else. Intriguing, and I definitely stand corrected....
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:


  • Where is this specified?
    2E Core is clear that it needs to be a wooden stake.

    If this archery exception isn't actually explicitly called out anywhere, then I'd have to say that things are what they are, and if any sort of wood worked, that's what it would say. For those who would devolve into semantic arguments of how an arrow is just a thin stake, it should be immediately obvious that that's not the intent of the verbiage or you wouldn't need to have semantic arguments about it.

    Every single instance of the bane says 'a wooden stake'. Stake is never excluded, the...
    See more | Go to post

    Leave a comment:

No activity results to display
Show More

Profile Sidebar

Collapse
lnodiv
lnodiv
Member
Last Activity: Today, 01:06 AM
Joined: 07-26-2014
Location:
Working...
X