Vampire: The Masquerade - Best Edition for a Noob?

[Easy e]

Greetings all,

I am interested in digging into this system. However, there are a few editions now, and am curious which is the best for a Noob to this system?

I would be new to this system, AND the players would potentially be new to it as well. Therefore, what is the most "accessible" edition and the most entertaining edition for new players.

Thanks for your help in advance.

[Mordar]

Do you plan to cross "species" at all from a player balance perspective (e.g. is there any chance you'll want PCs that are not Vampires but instead Mages, Werewolves, Changelings or otherwise)?

While I strongly recommend against that idea, it does change my answer.

If no (as it should be), I think keeping it simple is the best option...go with 2nd Edition. If you plan to allow cross-play, you might be better off with a 3rd party (e.g. GURPS) engine, or Chronicles of Darkness.

- M

[Talakeal]

I would just go with the current fifth edition unless your players are a bunch of grognards who have a thing for the classics.

Universal difficulty of six and the removal of soak make the game play so much smoother.

[Easy e]

Players (and I) will have no concept of how other editions do things. We will only have the version I pick up.


Also, no cross-monster play. Just Vamps.

[Mordar]

I would just go with the current fifth edition unless your players are a bunch of grognards who have a thing for the classics.

Universal difficulty of six and the removal of soak make the game play so much smoother.

Or, you know...preference for game experience as designed rather than streamlined simplicity for the darn kids on my lawn.

Can you guess what that GURPS reference I made felt like to me...?

- M

[SaurOps]

Or, you know...preference for game experience as designed rather than streamlined simplicity for the darn kids on my lawn.

Can you guess what that GURPS reference I made felt like to me...?

- M

Or you have a desired playstyle that 5e didn't think was worth keeping. Which is basically any playstyle that isn't "wallowing in personal horror".

(Not a big V:tM player, but W:tA... and W5 suffers horribly from the attitudes that cropped up in V5, especially since it isn't about personal horror as a central theme.)

[Mechalich]

There are three major options for Vampire: the Masquerade. First is the 1998 Revised Edition, which was the last edition published under the auspices of White-Wolf. That's the most complete and fleshed out version of the game, with the most supporting books and systems (this is not necessarily a benefit, since many WW produced subsystems have negative value). Second is V20, the 20th anniversary edition published by Onyx Path Publishing. V20 is basically a compilation of rules from the Revised edition - to the point of using whole paragraphs of rules completely verbatim for a huge portion of its content - with some slight updates. The only real advantage of this edition is that it is somewhat streamlined and the massively oversized corebook holds an awful lot of rules in one place. Also, in the current market it's much easier to get your hands on. Third is V5, the Fifth Edition published by a reconstituted White Wolf under the control of Paradox Interactive (who owns the rights to the WoD). Said edition was published in 2018, and almost immediately got embroiled in a controversy that saw Paradox dump this new White Wolf, retake control of the franchise, and subsequently allowed certain third parties (Onyx Path, Renegade Studios, etc.) publish various adventures and small sourcebooks.

Realistically, unless you already have a big pile of Revised Edition books or know someone who does, it's probably not worth pursuing, and the choice is between V20 or V5. Personally, my experience with V5 is very limited, but nothing I've heard suggests it's an great improvement over the old system in gameplay or story, and there is a lot of feedback suggesting it is even more narrowly focused on the personal horror approach than previous editions.

I would be new to this system, AND the players would potentially be new to it as well. Therefore, what is the most "accessible" edition and the most entertaining edition for new players.

It's worth noting that the WoD has long been a massively overstuffed setting, and the way to make it more accessible is to limit the amount of elements included. 'Vampires only' is a good start, and I'd strongly advise going further to 'all Cam' or 'all Anarchs' and keeping the Sabbat, and all their chaos, at a very distant arms length.

[Mordar]

It's worth noting that the WoD has long been a massively overstuffed setting, and the way to make it more accessible is to limit the amount of elements included. 'Vampires only' is a good start, and I'd strongly advise going further to 'all Cam' or 'all Anarchs' and keeping the Sabbat, and all their chaos, at a very distant arms length.

I think there is value in keeping them a non-playable adversary...it really provides a valuable foil in my opinion. Especially to give the less politically inclined an option for (at least as much as Masquerade allows) open warfare.

- M

[Beelzebub1111]

V20 (20th anniversary) seems like the most "complete" edition of the game. Like anything you want to do or play it has the tools to play it.

I'm not big on the combined discipline thing that V5 does, mostly because it screws over certain clans like Tzimisce where they have to change up powers just to make sure each clan gets their defining clan feature instead of just...giving them their defining clan feature.

It also feels weirdly sanitized. Like every adventure book I've read for it assumes that you will be anarchs who want to do the right thing or Camarilla who want to uncover the corruption and eventually join the anarchs. The sabbat book states, flat-out, that they won't give any options to play as sabbat, it's a gm only lorebook. Like there's no option to be, well, bloodsucking creatures of the night who try to maintain some semblance of order so that we don't all kill ourselves and each other through self-centered egoism or straight incompetence.

Like a lot of the adventures hinge on you "doing the right thing" (by which I mean whatever the author things the right thing is) to see the whole adventure, all the people you are supposed to like are very clearly soft innocent little babies who would never do anything REALLY wrong (by the moral standards of the author), and all the villains are clearly "bad people" who do "bad things" because they hate all the things you hate. It comes off as pretty cartoonish. Every vampire hunter group comes off as a Saturday morning cartoon version of a racist with no good reason to hate vampires. Like there are times where I think that they forget that every vampire is, indeed, a parasite on humanity as a whole.

[Anonymouswizard]

Requiem (the 2000s reboot) 2e is, IMO, the absolute best by a country mile. No metaplot, a streamlined system that V5 tried to copy, fewer but more archetypal Clans*, political affiliation as a character option (with mixed covenant coteries actually working), and a shuffling of 'special' disciplines off to bloodlines rather than major clans. It's also much nicer towards non-kindred PCs, not just other full splats but also mortals, ghouls, and dhamphirs.

My biggest issue is that the intended Mekhet bane is optional and in Thousand Years of Night, but the core one works fine.

Plus it has a book the current edition of Masquerade basically refuses to include: A Thousand Years of Night. Are your players always asking to make PCs who would logically be Elders? ATYoN not only understands, but has advice on how to make the changing norm of aging kindred work.

V5 has issues with a very narrow definition of 'street level', and V20 suffers from the book being 600ish pages long (being made as a 'one and done' tome for existing fans). Which is an issue with all the 20th anniversary editions, M20 is half as long again.

* Kind of, if you include the extinct and antagonist Clans you'll hit about a dozen.

[Talakeal]

Requiem (the 2000s reboot) 2e is, IMO, the absolute best by a country mile. No metaplot, a streamlined system that V5 tried to copy, fewer but more archetypal Clans*, political affiliation as a character option (with mixed covenant coteries actually working), and a shuffling of 'special' disciplines off to bloodlines rather than major clans. It's also much nicer towards non-kindred PCs, not just other full splats but also mortals, ghouls, and dhamphirs.

My biggest issue is that the intended Mekhet bane is optional and in Thousand Years of Night, but the core one works fine.

Plus it has a book the current edition of Masquerade basically refuses to include: A Thousand Years of Night. Are your players always asking to make PCs who would logically be Elders? ATYoN not only understands, but has advice on how to make the changing norm of aging kindred work.

V5 has issues with a very narrow definition of 'street level', and V20 suffers from the book being 600ish pages long (being made as a 'one and done' tome for existing fans). Which is an issue with all the 20th anniversary editions, M20 is half as long again.

* Kind of, if you include the extinct and antagonist Clans you'll hit about a dozen.

I tried Chronicles of Darkness (the Requiem system) but I just couldn't get it to work.

AFAICT the core combat math is just stupidly broken, and there are a few decisions, like the lack of a perception stat, that make running it a giant PITA.

[Mechalich]

It also feels weirdly sanitized.

I'd venture this is deliberate, given the publishing history.

The rights to the oWoD as a property are owned by Paradox Interactive - the Swedish video game company best known for grand strategy titles like Crusader Kings and Stellaris - following a purchase in 2015. This was done to give Paradox the rights to VtM: Bloodlines, the wildly successful video game, so that they could produce VTM: Bloodlines 2, currently scheduled to come out later this year. The entire TTRPG enterprise was a puny side enterprise that was allowed to exist mostly as a way to drive publicity. To that end, Paradox contracted a group of European TTRPG developers, allowed them to reconstitute as 'White-Wolf' (the original company having been dead for a decade at this point), and they produced the V5 corebook. Then they came out with Anarchs and Camarilla, and it turned out those books has some really bad stuff in them (which I won't mention directly but you can look it up very easily), so Paradox pulled the oWoD away from 'White-Wolf' and allowed continued publication of the Fifth Edition oWoD under the auspices of a group of very small and bespoke groups who clearly have orders to not court any controversy whatsoever.

[Anonymouswizard]

I tried Chronicles of Darkness (the Requiem system) but I just couldn't get it to work.

AFAICT the core combat math is just stupidly broken, and there are a few decisions, like the lack of a perception stat, that make running it a giant PITA.

The core combat maths is fine, although 2e does assume a LOT of willpower usage in combat. 2e also shifted weapons from a bonus to your dice pool and made them a straight damage bonus, so hits are rarer (especially with Athletics adding to Defence) but bigger.

Plus how hard is it to remember 'Wits+Composure for perception'?

[SaurOps]

It's not actually combat in CoD. It's an attempted murder simulator. Getting the feel of any kind of combat that isn't a scary encounter with death is not a priority, at least as far as I recall of developer discussion from way back.

[Talakeal]

The core combat maths is fine, although 2e does assume a LOT of willpower usage in combat. 2e also shifted weapons from a bonus to your dice pool and made them a straight damage bonus, so hits are rarer (especially with Athletics adding to Defence) but bigger.

So, here is how every combat went for me:

Players all have decent athletics scores.
Players wait for the monster to attack.
The target then declares a full defense in response, doubling their dodge score.
Monster misses by a mile.
Then the other three players beat the monster to death with pocket knives and baseball bats.
I noticed that the sample slasher in the core book has 0 athletics and 9 melee, so I am pretty sure the game designers are aware of this bug.

I posted on the Onyx Path forums and asked if I was doing it wrong, and they said that this was intentional and I wasn't doing anything wrong but:
1: I need to give me monsters a bunch of combat merits if I want them to be a threat and
2: Monsters need to use stealth and strike at players 1 at a time (which is, IMO, both against genre and against how tabletop games are usually played).

They responded by telling me it is realistic, that if four humans tried to fight a grizzly bear or a tiger in a cage match with baseball bats and pocket knives, the animal would stand no chance. At which point, I realized my perception of reality and theirs are too alien for common ground and disengaged.

Funny enough, having told the anecdote to friends and family, I realized there are 2 types of people in this world; those who think four humans can easily kill a tiger in a cage match and people who think a tiger can easily kill four humans in a cage match, with very few in between.

Plus how hard is it to remember 'Wits+Composure for perception'?

The problem was combining it with skills.

I can't count the number of times I said something like "Roll Perception + Investigation" only to remember there was no such thing anymore and I needed to find another stat to replace it, and none of the other stats really fit.

[Mechalich]

They responded by telling me it is realistic, that if four humans tried to fight a grizzly bear or a tiger in a cage match with baseball bats and pocket knives, the animal would stand no chance. At which point, I realized my perception of reality and theirs are too alien for common ground and disengaged.

Funny enough, having told the anecdote to friends and family, I realized there are 2 types of people in this world; those who think four humans can easily kill a tiger in a cage match and people who think a tiger can easily kill four humans in a cage match, with very few in between.

Four humans with baseball bats and pocket knives in a cage match with a grizzly bear or tiger would, in fact, beat it to death fairly easily if they fought at full strength with the understanding that situation is life or death. That is in fact quite realistic. However, at the same time, it is also realistic that the predator would horribly maul one of the four in the process.

The actual problem in your scenario, from a system perspective, is that the players are aware of who is being targeted and the targeted player can choose to defend, rather than a proper ordering of combat which would force them to decide defend vs. attack without knowing what the monster is going to do and where the blow is going to land.

[Talakeal]

The actual problem in your scenario, from a system perspective, is that the players are aware of who is being targeted and the targeted player can choose to defend, rather than a proper ordering of combat which would force them to decide defend vs. attack without knowing what the monster is going to do and where the blow is going to land.

I was told on the other forum that it was absolutely not fair for the storyteller to change the monsters target after total defense had been declared.

[Mordar]

Four humans with baseball bats and pocket knives in a cage match with a grizzly bear or tiger would, in fact, beat it to death fairly easily if they fought at full strength with the understanding that situation is life or death. That is in fact quite realistic. However, at the same time, it is also realistic that the predator would horribly maul one of the four in the process.

The actual problem in your scenario, from a system perspective, is that the players are aware of who is being targeted and the targeted player can choose to defend, rather than a proper ordering of combat which would force them to decide defend vs. attack without knowing what the monster is going to do and where the blow is going to land.

Random 4 people off the streets? I'm taking the critter.

- M

[Mechalich]

Random 4 people off the streets? I'm taking the critter.

The 'if they fought at full strength with the understanding that the situation is life or death' caveat is important. Four people chosen at random off modern urban streets are most likely to panic, scramble, and otherwise not fight, allowing them to be taken down one by one.

The key factor here is that a single large predator lacks an easy way to inflict lethal blows without pinning and holding. Large cats kill by knocking their prey down and then clamping down on the throat to induce suffocation or a broken neck, which is both not instantaneous and leaves the animal in a very vulnerable position while they are doing it (cats like lions and tigers have to take specific positions to avoid potentially deadly retributive strikes from the hooves or horns of the prey they are in the process of killing). Bears are more likely to strike the rib cage to achieve a knockdown before going for a killing bite, but they still need to push prey down. So, in a 4 vs 1 scenario, the predator can only achieve a kill through a takedown pounce that allows the other three people to wail upon it mercilessly, which it simply isn't going to survive for long if they have weapons of any kind.

[Anonymouswizard]

So, here is how every combat went for me:

Players all have decent athletics scores.
Players wait for the monster to attack.
The target then declares a full defense in response, doubling their dodge score.
Monster misses by a mile.
Then the other three players beat the monster to death with pocket knives and baseball bats.
I noticed that the sample slasher in the core book has 0 athletics and 9 melee, so I am pretty sure the game designers are aware of this bug.

Single monsters without significant defences will of course go down like chumps. Of course they can get around that by beefing up their defence or armour, and potentially by using Dread Powers to go beyond mortsal limits. Glass cannon opponents aren't going to be great in a straight upfight, and Slashers are some of the weaker supernaturals anyway...

I posted on the Onyx Path forums and asked if I was doing it wrong, and they said that this was intentional and I wasn't doing anything wrong but:
1: I need to give me monsters a bunch of combat merits if I want them to be a threat and
2: Monsters need to use stealth and strike at players 1 at a time (which is, IMO, both against genre and against how tabletop games are usually played).

I don't see how 'character without combat abilities can't take on groups' is a feature and not a bug. For monsters to stand a decent chance they need one of the following:

• Combat focused powers signifcantly higher than the PCs do
• Tactics that stop them from being ganged up on
• buddies

CofD, for better or worse, is not designed for 'one versus many' fights. The way defence works is key to this.

They responded by telling me it is realistic, that if four humans tried to fight a grizzly bear or a tiger in a cage match with baseball bats and pocket knives, the animal would stand no chance. At which point, I realized my perception of reality and theirs are too alien for common ground and disengaged.

Funny enough, having told the anecdote to friends and family, I realized there are 2 types of people in this world; those who think four humans can easily kill a tiger in a cage match and people who think a tiger can easily kill four humans in a cage match, with very few in between.

I mean, I wouldn't expect them to come out unbloodied, but that's one dead cat.

The problem was combining it with skills.

I can't count the number of times I said something like "Roll Perception + Investigation" only to remember there was no such thing anymore and I needed to find another stat to replace it, and none of the other stats really fit.

Sounds more like a feature than a bug, although generally it'll fall under one of the mental attributes. Intelligence, as Mental Power, makes a lot of sense for most situations so I'd probably default to that.

The actual issue seems to be more that you were still expecting the WoD attribute set.

[Talakeal]

Single monsters without significant defences will of course go down like chumps. Of course they can get around that by beefing up their defence or armour, and potentially by using Dread Powers to go beyond mortal limits.

I don't see how 'character without combat abilities can't take on groups' is a feature and not a bug. For monsters to stand a decent chance they need one of the following:

• Combat focused powers significantly higher than the PCs do
• Tactics that stop them from being ganged up on
• buddies

CofD, for better or worse, is not designed for 'one versus many' fights. The way defense works is key to this.

Maybe so. I was just not expecting a game where The Goonies can reliably beat Jason Voorhes in a straight fight without any casualties, and frankly that isn't really the type of game I have any interest in running as I can't take it seriously or use it to craft a horror scenario.

Single monsters without significant defences will of course go down like chumps. Of course they can get around that by beefing up their defence or armour, and potentially by using Dread Powers to go beyond mortsal limits. Glass cannon opponents aren't going to be great in a straight upfight, and Slashers are some of the weaker supernaturals anyway.

I think you are missing my point. They had to make the slasher a glass cannon, as that is the only way the fight could actually play out like you would expect a fight to. Athletics is simply too powerful for a fight to play out like it would in most games / fiction (and imo real life) unless you make monsters who dump athletics and have superhuman offensive skills.

Sounds more like a feature than a bug, although generally it'll fall under one of the mental attributes. Intelligence, as Mental Power, makes a lot of sense for most situations so I'd probably default to that.

The actual issue seems to be more that you were still expecting the WoD attribute set.

I wouldn't say that. I really like the addition of composure and resolve, and don't miss appearance in the slightest.

I just keep running into situations where the players are looking for something using a skill and without perception none of the ability scores fits right.

(This is actually a problem in many games btw. Perception is too weak to be a stat, but too strong to be a skill. Its an odd duck.)

[Mordar]

The 'if they fought at full strength with the understanding that the situation is life or death' caveat is important. Four people chosen at random off modern urban streets are most likely to panic, scramble, and otherwise not fight, allowing them to be taken down one by one.

The key factor here is that a single large predator lacks an easy way to inflict lethal blows without pinning and holding. Large cats kill by knocking their prey down and then clamping down on the throat to induce suffocation or a broken neck, which is both not instantaneous and leaves the animal in a very vulnerable position while they are doing it (cats like lions and tigers have to take specific positions to avoid potentially deadly retributive strikes from the hooves or horns of the prey they are in the process of killing). Bears are more likely to strike the rib cage to achieve a knockdown before going for a killing bite, but they still need to push prey down. So, in a 4 vs 1 scenario, the predator can only achieve a kill through a takedown pounce that allows the other three people to wail upon it mercilessly, which it simply isn't going to survive for long if they have weapons of any kind.

Them not being trained or capable fighters doesn't mean they aren't fighting at full strength and knowing that it is a life or death situation. Several animals are capable of interacting with multiple targets in the same encounter, and they don't kill one before attending to the next. Each successful swipe will incapacitate most humans. Still taking the critters unless the weapons are significantly upgraded.

- M

[Anonymouswizard]

Maybe so. I was just not expecting a game where The Goonies can reliably beat Jason Voorhes in a straight fight without any casualties, and frankly that isn't really the type of game I have any interest in running as I can't take it seriously or use it to craft a horror scenario.

So your issue is 1) you didn't build Jason right and 2) you just aren't interested in the kind of game CofD is designed for*. Even if he would be at 2 Wits, 2 Dex, 0 Athletics (which I doubt) he's going to have some level of Armour. Possibly 4+ points of general armour, maybe less ballistic (I'm not familiar with the series but I understand he gets taken out by guns at least once).

Assuming the PCs aren't combat professionals their dice pools should be below six, and therefore getting one or two successes most of the time. 3 points of armour throws that right into 'burn Willpower or flee' territory.

Which is another thing, the PCs don't have to win every fight. You're more than free to throw enemies that are practically immune to their attacks at them and force them to fall back and either arm up or set a trap. Especially in a Mortals or Hunters game, but it can even be valid in Werewolf.

If you don't want the kind of game CofD does than that's fine and us arguing about it is counterproductive.

* Which is actually personal horror and various derivatives, hence why PCs trend towards decent power levels.

[Talakeal]

So your issue is 1) you didn't build Jason right and 2) you just aren't interested in the kind of game CofD is designed for*. Even if he would be at 2 Wits, 2 Dex, 0 Athletics (which I doubt) he's going to have some level of Armour. Possibly 4+ points of general armour, maybe less ballistic (I'm not familiar with the series but I understand he gets taken out by guns at least once).

Assuming the PCs aren't combat professionals their dice pools should be below six, and therefore getting one or two successes most of the time. 3 points of armour throws that right into 'burn Willpower or flee' territory.

Which is another thing, the PCs don't have to win every fight. You're more than free to throw enemies that are practically immune to their attacks at them and force them to fall back and either arm up or set a trap. Especially in a Mortals or Hunters game, but it can even be valid in Werewolf.

If you don't want the kind of game CofD does than that's fine and us arguing about it is counterproductive.

* Which is actually personal horror and various derivatives, hence why PCs trend towards decent power levels.

Ok. Fine. The combat math isn't broken.

The combat math works as intended , which is to produce an outcome that is wholly unlike it would be in any other version of the Storyteller system or the various fictional mediums whose genre it emulates, or my view of real life, and thus I would not recommend it to people wanting to play Vampire.

[Anonymouswizard]

Ok. Fine. The combat math isn't broken.

The combat math works as intended to, and replicates a setting where the outcome of a fight is wholly unlike it would be in any other version of the Storyteller system

Not true. Pretty much all versions of Storyteller that eliminate extra actions ends up with a similar result. Heck run Storyteller 2e and don't give the antagonists extra actions to burn on defence, they'll go down FAST if they've not heavily invested into Soak just due to the realities of splitting dice pools.

An exception is Storypath, which is explicitly built for pulp action over horror. Ganging up is still effective, but defence penalties aren't so severe.

or the various fictional mediums whose genre it emulates,

Except it does when antagonists are built properly. A party of random mortals won't take down a Gauru form Uratha without a lot of luck or tactics (and even Dalu form could be problematic). You seem to insist that antagonists have to be built one way as glass cannons and then complain when the system has glass cannons go down fast.

Do you want a vampire who just shrugs off wounds and keeps coming at you no matter what? Give them Stamina, Resilience, Vitae reserves to use Resilience's active effects, and maybe body armour. And that's just using the systems in Requiem, not making a vampire via the Horror rules.

or my view of real life,

As we've established there is not a consensus on that.

and thus I would not recommend it to people wanting to play Vampire.

Because of the way combat works in a game primarily focused on politics? Even though it does when you build encounters with more than 'one dude, high attack zero defence'.

Hell, both the Sabbat and Belial's Brood act in packs specifically so that neonate on neonate combat works without either side having too much of a 'gang up' bonus. Then elders tend to have at least one Discipline that makes them hard to hurt in some way, if not to just sidestep actually fighting with you entirely.

Oh yeah, it's not just the PCs who can escape and regroup. Throw a point or two of armour on your bad guy then give them a 'screw this I'm out of here' power.

But my point is: use the tools the game gives you. Ventrue are the least combat focused Clan of kindred who'd probably go down in a straight up brawl. Ventrue also get access to Resilience, so it's going to be a long and bloody brawl as you beat them to a pulp multiple times (I'm assuming you've taken measures to deal with Dominate and the Ventrue doesn't have immediate access to any familiars or should animals).

If you want an antagonist to act like X then give them what they need to act like X. Don't refuse to give it to them and then whine when the combat system works as intended.

Like 1e had it bad, Fighting Styles were ridiculously powerful and there was little point in developing your powers for combat. Heck Resilience was an utter joke. But 2e intentionally scaled back the power of mortal methods and buffed a lot of powers, to the point where Resilience is high tier.

[Talakeal]

Not true. Pretty much all versions of Storyteller that eliminate extra actions ends up with a similar result. Heck run Storyteller 2e and don't give the antagonists extra actions to burn on defence, they'll go down FAST if they've not heavily invested into Soak just due to the realities of splitting dice pools.

An exception is Storypath, which is explicitly built for pulp action over horror. Ganging up is still effective, but defence penalties aren't so severe.



Except it does when antagonists are built properly. A party of random mortals won't take down a Gauru form Uratha without a lot of luck or tactics (and even Dalu form could be problematic). You seem to insist that antagonists have to be built one way as glass cannons and then complain when the system has glass cannons go down fast.

Do you want a vampire who just shrugs off wounds and keeps coming at you no matter what? Give them Stamina, Resilience, Vitae reserves to use Resilience's active effects, and maybe body armour. And that's just using the systems in Requiem, not making a vampire via the Horror rules.



As we've established there is not a consensus on that.



Because of the way combat works in a game primarily focused on politics? Even though it does when you build encounters with more than 'one dude, high attack zero defence'.

Hell, both the Sabbat and Belial's Brood act in packs specifically so that neonate on neonate combat works without either side having too much of a 'gang up' bonus. Then elders tend to have at least one Discipline that makes them hard to hurt in some way, if not to just sidestep actually fighting with you entirely.

Oh yeah, it's not just the PCs who can escape and regroup. Throw a point or two of armour on your bad guy then give them a 'screw this I'm out of here' power.

But my point is: use the tools the game gives you. Ventrue are the least combat focused Clan of kindred who'd probably go down in a straight up brawl. Ventrue also get access to Resilience, so it's going to be a long and bloody brawl as you beat them to a pulp multiple times (I'm assuming you've taken measures to deal with Dominate and the Ventrue doesn't have immediate access to any familiars or should animals).

If you want an antagonist to act like X then give them what they need to act like X. Don't refuse to give it to them and then whine when the combat system works as intended.

Like 1e had it bad, Fighting Styles were ridiculously powerful and there was little point in developing your powers for combat. Heck Resilience was an utter joke. But 2e intentionally scaled back the power of mortal methods and buffed a lot of powers, to the point where Resilience is high tier.

You keep misunderstanding me; high offense low defense is the only way the system *does* work.

Athletics is just too powerful as a defensive skill, especially when combined with the ability to swap to total defense after being targeted.


Now, I don't know Forsaken. So it may work totally differently.

But in my last game I put four kids up against a werewolf cribbed from Apocalypse; 7 strength, 4 dex, 6 stamina, regeneration, 3 dots of all its combat skills. In Apocalypse, this werewolf would have torn the kids to pieces without a second thought. But in Chronicles, it could not lay a finger on them, and without the ability to soak, they were able to whittle it down to death after only a few rounds in spite of its regeneration.

I was pretty sure I was running the combat wrong, but I was told this is the intended outcome.

[Anonymouswizard]

You keep misunderstanding me; high offense low defense is the only way the system *does* work.

Athletics is just too powerful as a defensive skill, especially when combined with the ability to swap to total defense after being targeted.

Have enemies come in groups and gang up on PCs, use attacks that don't target defence, or other solutions. Or just accept that most combat dice pools will be 3-5 dice smaller than you'd think.

For full defence I assume you mean the Dodge option, which I literally just checked. It lets you double your Defence, but then makes you roll it, actually leading to a slight reduction on average.

Now, I don't know Forsaken. So it may work totally differently.

But in my last game I put four kids up against a werewolf cribbed from Apocalypse; 7 strength, 4 dex, 6 stamina, regeneration, 3 dots of all its combat skills. In Apocalypse, this werewolf would have torn the kids to pieces without a second thought. But in Chronicles, it could not lay a finger on them, and without the ability to soak, they were able to whittle it down to death after only a few rounds in spite of its regeneration.

With 10 dice on melee it probably should have hit, unless the PCs were built for combat (at 3 Athletics most are only going to have about 5 Defence, with a lucky dodge roll the wolf is still likely to land that one success needed). Without Armour or significant regen (which Uratha are better at than Garou in 2e, particularly with Essence in reserve) it'll go down like a a chump even at Size 7.

With a point of armour? It'll last longer. With a power that lets it use the higher of Wits or Dex for defence (yes, those exist) any PCs not built at combatants need to gang up on it to hit it.

Heck, if it's claws weren't at least +0 weapons to make taking even a single hit hurt something's weird.

I was pretty sure I was running the combat wrong, but I was told this is the intended outcome.

I suspect you were running everything EXCEPT DODGING correct, with players who built for combat. With ten dice it should have landed a hit most rounds even with dodging, unless the players minmaxed defence.

If it's a big enemy also throw it 2-3 points of Willpower to nab those extra three dice if it really does keep missing.

[Talakeal]

@ Easy E: Sorry for derailing your thread!

Also, if anyone knows Changeling 20 well or oWoD: Werewolf combat well, please contact me, I have a few rules questions that are driving me up the wall!


As for realism:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/23/us/mo...nia/index.html

Here is a case where a single 90 lb mountain lion killed one athletic young man and injured another while suffering no injuries in turn.

I sincerely doubt that 4 people with pocket knives would fare any better against an animal close to 10 times that size.

Heck, if it's claws weren't at least +0 weapons to make taking even a single hit hurt something's weird.

The werewolf did get a single lucky hit in. It wasn't enough to kill or cripple anyone though, and even that was a lucky roll; if we ran the fight again it likely wouldn't have done even that much.

I suspect you were running everything EXCEPT DODGING correct, with players who built for combat. With ten dice it should have landed a hit most rounds even with dodging, unless the players minmaxed defence.

Nobody was built for combat, but two of the players were playing "jocks" with dice pools of 12 and 14 respectively when dodging, compared to the werewolf's pitiful seven when attacking.

Athletics is just so good, that I can't see anybody who knows the system and wants their character to survive not putting five dots in it.

If it's a big enemy also throw it 2-3 points of Willpower to nab those extra three dice if it really does keep missing.

Even with willpower, the werewolf was still unlikely to hit. Also, the players could theoretically use willpower as well.

In general though, I don't tend to have NPCs use willpower as it makes players very cranky (because they have to save their willpower for the entire session / adventure, but the NPC isn't expected to survive the encounter). This is not a problem unique to CoD.

[Morgaln]

@ Easy E: Sorry for derailing your thread!

Also, if anyone knows Changeling 20 well or oWoD: Werewolf combat well, please contact me, I have a few rules questions that are driving me up the wall!

I've played Werewolf:the Apocalypse weekly for about twenty years, so I think I have a pretty good grasp of the system. Feel free to ask whatever you want to know.

[Talakeal]

I've played Werewolf:the Apocalypse weekly for about twenty years, so I think I have a pretty good grasp of the system. Feel free to ask whatever you want to know.

(I am AFB right now so going from memory; I am sure I could figure out some of these answers on my own with in depth study, but some are still unclear)

I am curious about how a werewolf takes damage, and at what point they are conscious and can act.

A crinos werewolf is attacked with a mundane, non-silver, clubs. What happens? How many health levels do I have to inflict to knock it out? How many health levels do I have to inflict to kill it?

If it is incapacitated by bashing, further damage bleed over as lethal? How does this interact with regeneration? Does it heal the bashing at the bottom of its health track, the lethal at the top, or both? Will it wake up again?

To kill it, do I have to fill its track with aggravated, or will lethal do?

At what point does it get the (I forgot the exact term, the roll to see if you can regen as a last stand)? Will it be conscious for this?

When the players knocked out the werewolf with improvised clubs; they wanted to finish it off. I told them this was a bad idea, because they have regeneration and it might wake up again in a frenzy, and so they fortunately didn't go through with it, but mechanically I have no idea how that would have worked.