Alternate Clan Bane & Animalism?

[Neros]

Hello there

Have been going over some of the changes to Vampire: the Requiem 2nd edtion, but there are some of the neat changes me and my players weren't to happy with.

So I am hoping to find some alternatives to these or maybe explanations/clarifications to why they are fitting/OK to use.

Daeva Bane
The Daeva bane seems abit flat and boring. As fare as we can see, unless the ST is really gona be problematic, it will never come up in play. It just seems more of a nuisances than something that adds to what Daevas are.

Ventrue
Like the Daeva, this seems very flat. Compared to the others, it doesn't seem to really do anything. You fall in humanity and now have to pay experience to get a new touchstone.
Just like everybody else. However, once you have lost that one free Touchstone, you aren't furhter affected by your clan flaw. Atleast, I anything further that makes it "worse" for Ventrue than others.

I am guessing the line: "Further Touchstones may fill his sixth through second dots." is suppose to be the "extra flaw", but I can't see how it is suppose to be a flaw compared how Touchstones normally work.

Animalism
The fourth dot of animalism seems rather unfitting since it allows the wielder to affect none-animals. Any ideas for alternates? I was thinking of the old "Ride a beast" discipline.

[Elfive]

I don't recall anyone else making threads about the Daeva bane, but the Ventrue one has been the topic of numerous discussions.

As for Animalism, what Dot 4 is doing is letting you tap into the lizard brain of people and manipulate that. Totally in-theme.

[RomulusGloriosus]

Hello there
Animalism
The fourth dot of animalism seems rather unfitting since it allows the wielder to affect none-animals. Any ideas for alternates? I was thinking of the old "Ride a beast" discipline.

...how does it let you affect non-animals? It doesn't say anything about being able to use it on plants.

[Yossarian]

Daeva bane is actually pretty nasty, but you have to play it right. The ST can't just be like "Here's that same blood doll for the twelfth time. Do you dare!?" You kind of have to make it more of a carrot than a stick.

As a person whose character has suffered...several...Humanity drops, I can say that I'm really glad I wasn't playing a Ventrue. That 1xp may not seem like a lot, but, beyond the already difficult "oh god what to buy with my precious precious beats" sub-game, also consider that, if you haven't already bought a second touchstone, establishing new relationships can be (should be) difficult for vampires. Between vampire politics and feeding off folks, who even has the time, ya know?

I've found a good trick for the Venture bane is to play the touchstone a bit cold or hostile (whether that's the ST or another player). Ventrue treat everyone like a commodity, but don't realize it. Why shouldn't their touchstones push back against that?

That being said, the Ventrue bane can be a bit meh if you don't give a lot of focus to Touchstones. Rose Bailey had an alternate suggestion for games where Touchstones don't come up as often, but I don't recall where or what it is.

The clan banes can vary depending on what kind of game you're playing. Everything is context (and that also means what's in the book might not be right for you!) I've been in a game for the last year or so, spanning several decades in-character, and our Nosferatu has never had the mechanical effect of her bane come up. Banes are more about creating storyhooks and drama, not so much about making the character's life miserable. Ideally, they inform roleplaying even if they don't always come up.

[Neros]

Elfive
I'll give 'em a read. With so much discussion on the matter, there should be something useful in those threads :P

Elfive& RomulusGloriosus
As fare as me and my group see Animalism, it allows you to affect animals like predators and scavegning animals. Not sentient, thinking herbivores. So being able to take control of a human/vampire/werewolf, ect. Doesn't feel thematically right to us.

Also, it basicly does the same as the dot 3 effect, just in a different way with some limits but also with some "power ups".

Yossarian
I can image that it might work, but unlike the other flaws (besides the Ventrue), it is very much up to the ST when it really comes into play. Another problem is Ghouls. A Daeva can have a Ghoul, but will either have to nibble on it only once, or become Dependent on it.

The clan banes can vary depending on what kind of game you're playing. Everything is context (and that also means what's in the book might not be right for you!) I've been in a game for the last year or so, spanning several decades in-character, and our Nosferatu has never had the mechanical effect of her bane come up. Banes are more about creating storyhooks and drama, not so much about making the character's life miserable. Ideally, they inform roleplaying even if they don't always come up.

That is why I like most of the banes in 2nd edition. In 1st edition, they where fitting and cool. BUT, some of them, like for the Nosferatu or the Gangrel, made it very hard to have a intelligent Gangrel or a social Nosferatu. It removed some possibilities for creating a character.

[Yossarian]

I can image that it might work, but unlike the other flaws (besides the Ventrue), it is very much up to the ST when it really comes into play. Another problem is Ghouls. A Daeva can have a Ghoul, but will either have to nibble on it only once, or become Dependent on it.
.

And see, I think that's the bane working as intended. And not all vampires feed off their ghouls, for that matter. Even if a Daeva did feed on her ghoul, the effect's not automatic. It only comes into play if you fail the Humanity roll, so if the character has a decent pool, it's risky but sustainable. If she's slumming at at Humanity 3, though, then it might be a problem. Sometimes it's not about the ST making it work: it's about the player. Yes, it's a downside, but it's an interesting downside. If I were a Daeva player, I'd be intentionally risking that Bane, because that's kind of the fun of it. That, and an exceptional success on a feeding roll is a very easy way to get a former vessel back without the ST needing to shoehorn it.

Daeva either have to be complete loners who rely on one night stands, or they have to have masses of followers, and that's the kind of roleplaying informing I think is a feature, not a bug.

(One of the neat things about the Daeva bane is that it actually has a cure that doesn't just involve murdering your beloved: the Embrace. The Resolution comes with the mortal's death, which is why Daeva are known for grooming their childer so thoroughly, and then losing interest after the deed is done.)

[RomulusGloriosus]

Elfive& RomulusGloriosus
As fare as me and my group see Animalism, it allows you to affect animals like predators and scavegning animals. Not sentient, thinking herbivores. So being able to take control of a human/vampire/werewolf, ect. Doesn't feel thematically right to us.

Huh, that's a good point about how Animalism is only supposed to affect predators, and not all animals. Some would argue that humans are themselves predators, however, and that Animalism 4 digs beneath the facade of the 'man' to the vestiges of the 'beast' (lowercase b) that still lies within them. The beast that hungers for raw, red meat and carnal pleasure. I think that's pretty thematic given the themes of man vs. beast that are present in vampire, and the idea of the sick and twisted buried beneath the genteel.

And even if you don't eat meat (like me) that still doesn't mean you don't have a lizard brain all the same, buried under everything else. I think it's super fitting that high levels of animalism get to bypass the 'carnivore' thing as your mastery of the beast (again lowercase) grows stronger.

[Elfive]

Predators and scavengers.

Ie, basically everything.

[Charlaquin]

Humans are absolutely predators. Omnivores, but still predators. We have front-facing eyes, teeth made for tearing meat, and the fact that our large and complex brains have given us the capacity to understand our dietary requirements and compensate for a lack of actual meat in our diets with synthetic and natural supplements does not actually change the fact that we would otherwise require meat. Our nearest evolutionary cousins are also omnivorous predators. Vampires, if anything, are even more predatory than living humans.

[Elfive]

I'm pretty sure werewolves would take being called a herbivore as a deadly insult.

[RomulusGloriosus]

I'm pretty sure werewolves would take being called a herbivore as a deadly insult.

Yeah. One could argue whether humans are really carnivores or herbivores or omnivores or simply opportunists (which would still fit under the Animalism purview imo) but one cannot possibly argue that Vampires and Werewolves are not predators. Vampires have an ability called the Predator's Aura for crying out loud.

[Charlaquin]

Yeah. One could argue whether humans are really carnivores or herbivores or omnivores or simply opportunists (which would still fit under the Animalism purview imo) but one cannot possibly argue that Vampires and Werewolves are not predators. Vampires have an ability called the Predator's Aura for crying out loud.

I'd have a hard time accepting an argument for humans being either herbivores or carnivores by nature. We can survive either way, with proper supplements to compensate, but neither is by any means the most efficient way for humans to get the nutrition we need, and it's really only possible thanks to agriculture. Hunter gatherer humans who tried cutting either meat or plant matter and fungi out of their diets would definitely suffer malnutrition.

EDIT: To be clear, this is not meant as an admonishment against those who do cut meat from their diets. Just because it wouldn't be healthy without our agricultural infrastructure doesn't mean there's anything wrong with utilizing the infrastructure we do have for that purpose. In fact, the problems with that infrastructure and the way animals are often treated within it are the most convincing argument I've heard for going vegetarian or vegan.

[RomulusGloriosus]

I'd have a hard time accepting an argument for humans being either herbivores or carnivores by nature. We can survive either way, with proper supplements to compensate, but neither is by any means the most efficient way for humans to get the nutrition we need, and it's really only possible thanks to agriculture. Hunter gatherer humans who tried cutting either meat or plant matter and fungi out of their diets would definitely suffer malnutrition.

My personal belief is that humans are, have been, and always will be opportunists. We eat what we can get our hands on, and we will adapt to be able to consume it, one way or another. That's how we evolved, and as such we have no "ideal" diet. I'd still consider opportunists under the Animalism discipline.

[Charlaquin]

My personal belief is that humans are, have been, and always will be opportunists. We eat what we can get our hands on, and we will adapt to be able to consume it, one way or another. That's how we evolved, and as such we have no "ideal" diet. I'd still consider opportunists under the Animalism discipline.

That's a perfectly fair assessment.

[Neros]

Yossarian
Completely forgot about the "must roll Humanity" part. But it still seems weird to me. Not to mention that the less monstrous and bestial you become, the more likely you will be of falling in love with someone..
But it helps that it isn't automatic, and I can see what my players say to it. I am still not to fund of it. It still feels like something that either never comes up or that can easily feel overused.

RomulusGloriosus
Humans are omnivores. We eat abit of it all and don't depend on one method of gaining food.
But I can see the logic of the power being able to affect the lizard brain, I really do and it could work thematically. But me and my players still have the same problems and would like to change it:
- It does what dot 3 does, just differently. They are way to similar for our taste.
- It goes beyond the realm of mere animals. The rest of the power plays purely with predators and scavengers.
- It allows you to control other things than animals (humans, kindred, werewolves, ghosts, mages, demons, ect..). Though, only within a certain degree I think. Sounds like there must be some kind of goal with the activation of the power.

Elfive
Not quite.

And yes, they certainly would take offence to that.. Maybe even prove that they aren't herbivores

Charlaquin
We are also farmers, scavengers, opportunists, ect.. But As I mentioned for Romulus, I understand that it could thematically work. But me and my group still have problems with the power.

Animalsim
So fare, Ride the Beast from the old game seems like it would work well. But I think they removed it because it walk over into the territory of Protean. So if You had both, you kinda had the same power. Kinda..