-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
There are magical abilities all over the WoD that don't require power points to use, but no non-magical abilities that do. If an ability can use them, it must be magical.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Glyphstone
Werewolves only have claws when shapeshifted into crinos form, a supernatural power, so yes.
I think there are other forms that grant claws. Besides, werewolves only have increased speed in hispo and lupus form, but that doesn't mean the ability is supernatural.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
Me and my friends are having a disagreement on whether skin of the adder allows you to soak damage from feral claws. Relevant text:
Feral Claws: The Beast is prominent in the claws as well, making them fearsome weapons against other immortals.
The Skin of the Adder: The vampire may use her Stamina to soak aggravated damage from claws and fangs, but not from fire, sunlight, or other supernatural energies.
My interpretation is that the beast's presence in the claws makes them illegable for that ability of SotA, despite it being claws. (I would allow the damage from a chainsaw to be soaked with SotA, even though it is neither fang nor claw).
Thoughts?
It's fluff. SotA lets you soak damage from the claws.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
The werewolf warform in both editions of the World of Darkness spontaneously turns a normal-sized human into a nine-foot-tall mountain of muscle. I'm not sure how it can be described as "natural".
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
It's fluff. SotA lets you soak damage from the claws.
Isn't the default aproach to WoD that fluff maters, alot. Its not exactly hard to find holes in the rules. RAW I know that SotA allows you to soak damage from bloodclaws, but not chainsaws and anti-personel rounds. But WoD is not a system that works well under such aproach, and so I would consider reversing the above (and even if not I would still allow chainsaw and APR to be soaked).
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
Isn't the default aproach to WoD that fluff maters, alot. Its not exactly hard to find holes in the rules. RAW I know that SotA allows you to soak damage from bloodclaws, but not chainsaws and anti-personel rounds. But WoD is not a system that works well under such aproach, and so I would consider reversing the above (and even if not I would still allow chainsaw and APR to be soaked).
Why, though? When the power explicitly calls out claws and fangs - supernatural natural weaponry - as what it's built to defend against, why would you remove that ability from it? Expanding its protection to non-supernatural aggravated damage might make sense. But not removing the reason it exists in the first place (and definitely not if you don't even swap it for equivalent protection). Fluff is important, but the context of the fluff seems pretty clear that "supernatural aggravated melee damage = yes, supernatural aggravated energy/magic damage = no" - here the fluff and rules align perfectly.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
My friend and I were discussing the Fortitude Discipline in Vampire: The Masquerade, and I would appreciate some more opinions. :smallsmile:
We agree that Fortitude is pretty much the least useful Discipline of them all. It's only useful in particular circumstance that a cunning vampire will be able to avoid most of the time.
We talked a bit about changing it. He suggested Fortitude dots would count as automatic soak successes against non-aggravated damage. Later I got the idea that each dot would count as two extra die for soaking, either all damage or just non-aggravated.
Have anyone tried making changes to Fortitude and come up with something that wasn't too overpowered?
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Question, where is the Leviathan Book? I cannot seem to find it.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morty
The werewolf warform in both editions of the World of Darkness spontaneously turns a normal-sized human into a nine-foot-tall mountain of muscle. I'm not sure how it can be described as "natural".
There are hundred foot long mountains of muscle in the real world. Shall I inform the biologists that they're studying things that don't exist?
Also, Gauru, Urshul, and Dalu all grant claws, but Gauru and Urshul ones are better. I'm actually not using nwod terms to be contrary, they're just the ones I remember. WW was never my favorite line, and I reread WtF for a different game entirely recently.
Edit: As to Leviathan, the wiki is here
http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/Leviat...ilationProject
I couldn't immediately find a .pdf, if there is one.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RPGuru1331
There are hundred foot long mountains of muscle in the real world. Shall I inform the biologists that they're studying things that don't exist?
Said giant beasts are consistently huge. They don't suddenly transform from much smaller creatures, effectively producing mass out of nowhere.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Morty
Said giant beasts are consistently huge. They don't suddenly transform from much smaller creatures, effectively producing mass out of nowhere.
And? Unobserved and undefined laws of reality are no less laws. As far as the WoD is concerned, that's all part of the natural world.
Natural, itself, is really only meaningful when contrasted by either an extraordinarily solid definition of 'supernatural', or 'artificial'. The WoD lacks the former, and they're certainly not artificial.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RPGuru1331
And? Unobserved and undefined laws of reality are no less laws. As far as the WoD is concerned, that's all part of the natural world.
Natural, itself, is really only meaningful when contrasted by either an extraordinarily solid definition of 'supernatural', or 'artificial'. The WoD lacks the former, and they're certainly not artificial.
Werewolves are easy there - they have their shapeshifting powers because of their ancestry/heritage connection with spirits, native entities to another dimension that can only be reached from our world via magic. There could be a semantic argument that spirits are 'natural' in their own world, but they don't obey any natural laws native to our world, so they can't be considered natural here, and by extension the people they favor with their gifts are being granted super-natural powers.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Glyphstone
Werewolves are easy there - they have their shapeshifting powers because of their ancestry/heritage connection with spirits, native entities to another dimension that can only be reached from our world via magic. There could be a semantic argument that spirits are 'natural' in their own world, but they don't obey any natural laws native to our world, so they can't be considered natural here, and by extension the people they favor with their gifts are being granted super-natural powers.
Their world is part of the universe, though. Or multiverse, if you prefer, after having concrete evidence for alternate planes of reality. It exists (within the WoD), so it's natural.
The problem with the term 'supernatural' is it's generally a word that's used to mean 'things that don't exist'. It's possible to make a definition for it that's actually workable, but it's not really the done thing.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
In WoD, "supernatural" pretty clearly means "magic". That is, things that don't follow the normal laws of the Fallen World (and, more specifically, the material part of the Fallen World - the bit mortals live in, not the Shadow, Hedge or Underworld) that most regular muggles believe are true.
Such as a human-shaped person suddenly gaining three feet and five hundred pounds. And fur.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
Or people resisting magic with words, a la Moral Support Tactic.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Glyphstone
Why, though? When the power explicitly calls out claws and fangs - supernatural natural weaponry - as what it's built to defend against, why would you remove that ability from it? Expanding its protection to non-supernatural aggravated damage might make sense. But not removing the reason it exists in the first place (and definitely not if you don't even swap it for equivalent protection). Fluff is important, but the context of the fluff seems pretty clear that "supernatural aggravated melee damage = yes, supernatural aggravated energy/magic damage = no" - here the fluff and rules align perfectly.
Because claws made of blood and inhabited by the beast strike me as being different than the default fangs of a vampire/fangs and claws of a werewolf. And I'm sceptical of any argument that involves the phrase "supernatural natural weaponry". But mainly the former.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yuki Akuma
In WoD, "supernatural" pretty clearly means "magic".
No it really isn't. Tremier blood magic, changling magic, the magic of true mage, the magic of the hedge mage. If there is any clear relationship between the two words its:
"All magic is supernatural, and all supernatural is kinda maybe magicish."
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
Isn't the default aproach to WoD that fluff maters, alot. Its not exactly hard to find holes in the rules. RAW I know that SotA allows you to soak damage from bloodclaws, but not chainsaws and anti-personel rounds. But WoD is not a system that works well under such aproach, and so I would consider reversing the above (and even if not I would still allow chainsaw and APR to be soaked).
Fluff mattering, and I don't even know what the hell that means since setting....tends to matter, and fluff being mechanics are not the same thing.
Been a long time also since I read a CWoD book but I want to say the stuff for chainsaws,etc was option as a attack X does massive bodily harm. Beyond that, it's a bit of a straw man to say there are spotty mechanics ergo..... If you want an official response you'd have to post on the CWoD forums at the white wolf forums and see if I can't get a former writer or developer to give an answer. If you want to house rule that, then house rule it to your heart's content as per RAW SotA would soak damage from Protean claws.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
Fluff mattering, and I don't even know what the hell that means since setting....tends to matter, and fluff being mechanics are not the same thing.
Fluff matters more in WoD. Reading through the vampire discipline powers, if I skip to the "System:" paragraph I often lose important information on how the power works, wereas in D&D I can often skip the fluff paragraph of an ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
Been a long time also since I read a CWoD book but I want to say the stuff for chainsaws,etc was option as a attack X does massive bodily harm.
And such massive bodily harm wasn't represented by aggrevated damage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
Beyond that, it's a bit of a straw man to say there are spotty mechanics ergo.....
Why do you think so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
If you want an official response you'd have to post on the CWoD forums at the white wolf forums and see if I can't get a former writer or developer to give an answer. If you want to house rule that, then house rule it to your heart's content.
And if I care what other people think? I know I'm being argumentative but I just want to make sure people have valid reasons for wanting to keep things that way, and not simply "well the rules say so".
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
Because claws made of blood and inhabited by the beast strike me as being different than the default fangs of a vampire/fangs and claws of a werewolf. And I'm sceptical of any argument that involves the phrase "supernatural natural weaponry". But mainly the former.
No it really isn't. Tremier blood magic, changling magic, the magic of true mage, the magic of the hedge mage. If there is any clear relationship between the two words its:
"All magic is supernatural, and all supernatural is kinda maybe magicish."
A vampire is infused by the Beast, so his fangs would also be inhabited by them - claws would be no different. And what gives you the idea that Feral Claws are 'made of blood'? You spend blood to activate them, but they're still physical objects - your nails transformed into huge claws, specifically.
Housrule it however you want, but the RAW is clear, it doesn't contradict the fluff, and I personally think it's a waste of time...Skin of the Adder is hardly overpowered as written.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Glyphstone
A vampire is infused by the Beast, so his fangs would also be inhabited by them - claws would be no different. And what gives you the idea that Feral Claws are 'made of blood'? You spend blood to activate them, but they're still physical objects - your nails transformed into huge claws, specifically.
Housrule it however you want, but the RAW is clear, it doesn't contradict the fluff, and I personally think it's a waste of time...Skin of the Adder is hardly overpowered as written.
Its nothing to do with power. As for "made of blood", that was from the dark ages. As it is, yeah I'd allow feral claws to be soaked. Now I just need to decide if the same should apply in the dark ages, where they are actually blood.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
No it really isn't. Tremier blood magic, changling magic, the magic of true mage, the magic of the hedge mage.
What is this bit supposed to mean, anyway?:smallconfused:
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
C'nor
What is this bit supposed to mean, anyway?:smallconfused:
Exactly what I went on to say in the post. That "magic" is clearly not the same as "supernatural" in WoD. Magic may be supernatural, but that doesn't mean supernatural means magic.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
Exactly what I went on to say in the post. That "magic" is clearly not the same as "supernatural" in WoD. Magic may be supernatural, but that doesn't mean supernatural means magic.
Those were things that you were defining as magic, though, yes? Not things you were saying were supernatural but not magical? Or a list of everything you considered supernatural, and then saying some parts of it were magic and others weren't?
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
C'nor
Those were things that you were defining as magic, though, yes? Not things you were saying were supernatural but not magical? Or a list of everything you considered supernatural, and then saying some parts of it were magic and others weren't?
That was a list of things off the top of my head that are not just supernatural, but also magic.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Boci
Fluff matters more in WoD. Reading through the vampire discipline powers, if I skip to the "System:" paragraph I often lose important information on how the power works, wereas in D&D I can often skip the fluff paragraph of an ability.
Which translates into mechanics.....how. Fluff is fluff, mechanics is mechanics. If fluff has mechanical weight....people write mechanics to support it. This is tangential anyway...
Quote:
And such massive bodily harm wasn't represented by aggrevated damage?
Aggravated damage you mean? See the part where I said I haven't read a CWoD book in a long time.
Quote:
Why do you think so?
Because spotty mechanics in areas is not a carte blanche to interpret everything as bizarrely as possible.
[QOTE] And if I care what other people think? I know I'm being argumentative but I just want to make sure people have valid reasons for wanting to keep things that way, and not simply "well the rules say so".[/QUOTE]
Then you've received an opinion. If Claws were an exception then either, or preferably, both powers could have mentioned so. They don't but skin explicitly mentions soaking some sources of agg. Again, house rule what you want but the mechanics are clear.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
Which translates into mechanics.....how. Fluff is fluff, mechanics is mechanics. If fluff has mechanical weight....people write mechanics to support it. This is tangential anyway...
WoD is a rules light system. Often the storyteller will be expected to make a ruling because the rules won;t cover it, and in such a case they will typically use the fluff to come up with this ruling. So fluff does have mechanical weight.
"If they wanted rules for it they would have written them" is an apropriate attitude for a rules heavy system, but WoD isn't that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
Because spotty mechanics in areas is not a carte blanche to interpret everything as bizarrely as possible.
Assuming claws made of blood to be pretty supernatural is not "as bizarre as possible".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
Then you've received an opinion. If Claws were an exception then either, or preferably, both powers could have mentioned so. They don't but skin explicitly mentions soaking some sources of agg. Again, house rule what you want but the mechanics are clear.
So after hearing me say "I want valid reasons, not just the rules say so", you decide the best response is "The rules say so"?
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
@SiderealDreams - You do realize I've accepted that in the modern age SotA will allow you to soak the damage of feral claws?
Edit: Reguarding me being a rules lawyer: my question is hypothetical. There is 1 player with bloodclaws in the game I ST, and there are not going to be setites in that one anytime soon. In the other game in which I am a player there is nobody with blood claws and nobody with serpentis. So the houserule would not grant me an advantage in either game.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to CeSlebrate!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiderealDreams
In other news. The person doing the Index for Mummy was twittering some requests for what sort of stuff people call a must have for game indexes. So hopefully this means that Mummy really is as close to launching as they are saying.
Oh, word, really? Most excellent. I hope it goes next to Changeling and Hunter in my list of "Love n and o versions.". If I recall, its the same dude with a totally different focus.
-
Re: General WoD Discussion #2: Its time to Celebrate!
So, uh... Moving to a subject that's hopefully less likely to devolve into bickering, does anyone mind telling me just how badly I messed up the pledge I posted a page back?